Hamer, J.,
dissenting.I dissent from the views expressed in the majority opln*401ion upon the ground that there was no offer upon the part of the defendant to prove that the cashier or any officer of the plaintiff bank had any knowledge of the alleged fraudulent inception of the note sued on at the time the same was delivered to the plaintiff. Nor is¡ there sufficient evidence, as it seems to me, to prove any improper purpose upon the part of any officer of the plaintiff.