The principal question presented by the appeal is the correctness of the ruling of the court below that the note and deed of trust in the hands of the plaintiff, though acquired after maturity, were not subject to equities and defenses in favor of the makers by reason of an alleged agreement between them and R. H. Rigsbee, unless R. H. Rigsbee had purchased or become the holder of the note and deed of trust.
The controverted issue around which the trial below revolved was whether R. H. Rigsbee, pursuant to an agreement with the appellants, purchased the note and deed of trust with funds of the estate of which he *164was executor and trustee, and became the holder of the note and deed of trust, and plaintiff had taken as transferee or assignee from him, or whether the plaintiff Pickett purchased and took the papers by assignment and delivery direct from the payee of the note, J. S. Perry.
Upon this issue, the decision by the triers of the facts was in favor of the plaintiff.
This determination of the litigated question by the jury was based upon sufficient competent evidence and followed a correct charge by the presiding judge. We see no valid ground upon which the result can be disturbed.
It is well settled that the assignment of a negotiable note after maturity subjects the holder to all equities and defenses which the maker might have had against the original payee and all intermediate holders at the time of the assignment, the assignee standing in the place of his assignor and taking with constructive notice of antecedent equities. C. S., 446; C. S., 3039; Haywood v. McNair, 14 N. C., 231; Harris v. Burwell, 65 N. C., 584; Hill v. Shields, 81 N. C., 250; Capell v. Long, 84 N. C., 17; Bresee v. Crumpton, 121 N. C., 122; Bank v. Loughran, 126 N. C., 814; Thompson v. Osborne, 152 N. C., 408; Guthrie v. Moore, 182 N. C., 24; Whitman v. York, 192 N. C., 87; Barnes v. Crawford, 201 N. C., 434; Mansfield v. Wade, 208 N. C., 790; Hood, Comr., v. Tilley, 209 N. C., 842; Stegal v. Bank, 163 Va., 417.
Rut this rule does not subject the assignee to an asserted equity or defense arising out of an agreement between the maker and a third person who did not become a purchaser or holder of the note and of which the assignee had no notice at the time of the assignment. 8 C. J., 741; Daniel on Negotiable Instruments (6th Ed.), sec. 726 (b).
The verdict of the jury has established the fact that R. H. Rigsbee did not purchase or become the holder of the note, and the evidence of the defendants as well as that of plaintiff negatives the suggestion of notice to plaintiff for Perry of the alleged agreement with Rigsbee at the time of the assignment of the note. Hare v. Hare, 208 N. C., 442. As to that, no issue was tendered and there was no evidence to support it. Potts v. Insurance Co., 206 N. C., 257. The uncontradicted evidence shows unmistakably that plaintiff paid full value, $7,100, for the note, on 29 September, 1926.
The contention of appellants that the court erred in reciting in the judgment that it was admitted plaintiff acquired the note and deed of trust after 2 August, 1923, is without merit. In appellants’ brief it was stated: “Defendants admitted that plaintiff was holder but denied he was holder in due course;” and further, “the uncontradicted evidence in this case is that the defendant (plaintiff) acquired the note in suit years after its maturity date, 2 August, 1923. His counsel admitted *165this during the course of the trial, and this admission is carried forward into the judgment so that the record might not he ambiguous on this point.”
Unquestionably plaintiff was not a “holder in due course,” but was a holder. He came into court with the note and deed of trust endorsed in blank by the payee, J. S. Perry, and offered the papers in evidence. This imported that he was the lawful owner. C. S., 2976; C. S., 3040; 6 R. C. L., sec. 190. By presenting the paper he made out a prima facie case. As was held in Trust Co. v. Bank, 167 N. C., 260, “the production of the notes by the plaintiff was prima facie evidence of ownership.” Here there was nothing to rebut the prima facie case. The date of the transfer was not in controversy. Bank v. Drug Co., 152 N. C., 142.
In the charge of the court it was stated, without objection or offer of correction, that it was one of the contentions of the defendants that the plaintiff acquired the note after its maturity. LaRoque v. Kennedy, 156 N. C., 360; Hardy v. Mitchell, 161 N. C., 351; Randolph v. Lewis, 196 N. C., 51.
The case was tried below under the view of the presiding judge that the answer of the jury to the second issue was determinative, and he instructed them, if they answered the second issue “Ho,” that would end the ease. Por, if R. H. Rigsbee acquired or held the note, his agreement (if he made the agreement alleged by appellants) would be binding on the plaintiff, the subsequent transferee. If Rigsbee did not acquire the note and never became the holder, such an agreement, even if established, would not, under the circumstances disclosed by the evidence in this case, constitute a defense against the plaintiff Pickett, the assignee of Perry, the payee.
The appellants excepted to the failure of the court to submit the issues tendered by them, but these omitted the determinative question embraced in the second issue, and were in other respects identical with those adopted by the court. Ho others were tendered.
Appellants assign error in the rulings of the coiirt on the evidence, but these exceptions cannot be sustained. It was competent to show that the taxes on the land were, for several years, unpaid, and also the financial credit of appellants, in corroboration of plaintiff’s testimony as to what occurred at the time of the assignment of the note. While it is true the admission of the copy of a letter from the president of the bank to the trustee, W. J. Brogden, would not be competent against the other defendants, the facts set out in the letter were in evidence otherwise, and appellants suffered no harm thereby.
We have examined all the exceptions noted and brought forward in the brief, and conclude that none of them are of sufficient moment to warrant us in disturbing the result.
Ho error.