reasonably prudent man upon inquiry in Texas

2008Id. at 655 .

1943It is true that bad faith can be established by circumstantial evidence (Walker v. Commercial Credit Co., supra; Landon v. Halcomb, Tex.Civ.App., 184 S.W. 1098 ), and that such facts and circumstances as would be permissible in an ordinary case to show that the purchaser of a negotiable instrument had knowledge of facts that should have put a reasonably prudent man upon inquiry, are admissible in evidence as tending to show actual knowledge of a defect in the title to the instrument, or that the purchaser in taking the instrument with knowledge of such facts acted in bad faith.

1937The proof must not only show that it was purchased with partnership funds and used for the partnership ■ purposes, constituting a part of the partnership assets, but there must be further proof that the purchaser knew these facts or had knowledge of such facts that would put a reasonably prudent man upon inquiry which, followed up, would give him the information that the property was of the assets of the firm.” From Adams v. Blumenshine, 27 N.M. 643 , 204 P. 66, 67 , 20 A.L.R. 369 : “The presumption is always against the inclusion in the firm assets of real estate held by the partners as tenan

1937The proof must not only show that it was purchased with partnership funds and used for the partnership ■ purposes, constituting a part of the partnership assets, but there must be further proof that the purchaser knew these facts or had knowledge of such facts that would put a reasonably prudent man upon inquiry which, followed up, would give him the information that the property was of the assets of the firm.” From Adams v. Blumenshine, 27 N.M. 643 , 204 P. 66, 67 , 20 A.L.R. 369 : “The presumption is always against the inclusion in the firm assets of real estate held by the partners as tenan

1937The proof must not only show that it was purchased with partnership funds and used for the partnership ■ purposes, constituting a part of the partnership assets, but there must be further proof that the purchaser knew these facts or had knowledge of such facts that would put a reasonably prudent man upon inquiry which, followed up, would give him the information that the property was of the assets of the firm.” From Adams v. Blumenshine, 27 N.M. 643 , 204 P. 66, 67 , 20 A.L.R. 369 : “The presumption is always against the inclusion in the firm assets of real estate held by the partners as tenan

1937The proof must not only show that it was purchased with partnership funds and used for the partnership ■ purposes, constituting a part of the partnership assets, but there must be further proof that the purchaser knew these facts or had knowledge of such facts that would put a reasonably prudent man upon inquiry which, followed up, would give him the information that the property was of the assets of the firm.” From Adams v. Blumenshine, 27 N.M. 643 , 204 P. 66, 67 , 20 A.L.R. 369 : “The presumption is always against the inclusion in the firm assets of real estate held by the partners as tenan

1932Before the above statute was enacted it was held,-in Graves v. Kinney, 95 Tex. 210 , 66 S. W. 293 , that the right of one who has purchased an apparent vendor’s lien note created in a fictitious or simulated sale of homestead premises to enforce the lien against the homestead rests on the protection given a bona fide purchaser.

1932Before the above statute was enacted it was held,-in Graves v. Kinney, 95 Tex. 210 , 66 S. W. 293 , that the right of one who has purchased an apparent vendor’s lien note created in a fictitious or simulated sale of homestead premises to enforce the lien against the homestead rests on the protection given a bona fide purchaser.

1928App.) 253 S. W. 833 , and authorities there cited.

1897Sickles v. White, 66 Texas, 178 ; Goldman v. Blum, 58 Texas, 630 ; Webb, Record of Title; secs. 219, 223.

1897Sickles v. White, 66 Texas, 178 ; Goldman v. Blum, 58 Texas, 630 ; Webb, Record of Title; secs. 219, 223.