of a play, which he sold to a sister of defendant, she agreeing to pay therefor a certain sum of money as soon as she could sell some property owned by her. Defendant, to some extent, participated in the prior negotiations, but it was not claimed that the play was sold to him or that he ever agreed to pay any portion of the purchase-price, except as hereinafter stated. Subsequently the plaintiff applied to defendant for a loan, and two notes were made and signed by defendant and another and delivered to the plaintiff to enable him to get them discounted. Thereafter plaintiff returned these notes to defendant, who thereupon gave the plaintiff, for his accommodation, two other notes, signed by defendant alone, and when they were delivered defendant asked for and obtained a receipt stating that the amount of the notes was in part payment of the play. These notes were kept until maturity, and not being paid, suit was brought thereon and the defense of want of consideration was set up. It was not claimed that the sister ever requested defendant to give the notes, and she had no knowledge about their being given. It was decided that the notes could not be enforced.98 But, where the holder of a note accepts in payment the note of a third party, in an amount equal to the original note, and surrenders the original note, the note of the third party is supported by sufficient consideration.99 So, where a third person gives his note to a creditor, and it was intended as a gift of the debtor, and was accepted by the creditor as cash, the note is supported by a consideration.1 § 377. Note given to promote peace between husband and wife-Note of stranger.-A written promise by a stranger, in the form of a note, not given in satisfaction of any legal obligation, but given to a husband in order that he might deliver the same to his wife to secure domestic peace between them, is not in law a good promise in consideration of marriage, and such note is with 98 Tyler v. Jaeger, 47 Misc. 84, 93 N. Y. S. 558. The case of Kramer v. Kramer, 90 App. Div. 176, 86 N. Y. S. 129, considered by the court in the principal case was subsequently reversed in 181 N. Y. 477. See ch. 12. Examine Wyman v. Gray, 7 Har. & J. (Md.) 409, considered under ch. 10. 99 Bridges v. Vann, 88 Kans. 98, 127 Pac. 604; Seager v. Drayton, 217 Mass. 571, 105 N. E. 461. 85. 1 Murrah v. Russell, 194 Ill. App. out consideration in the hands of the wife against the maker and can not be collected, even though there was an antenuptial agreement, but not in writing, whereby the intended husband was to give the wife a certain sum of money, and the note was given about two and one-half years after their marriage.2 2 Kramer v. Kramer, 181 N. Y. 477, 74 N. E. 474, revg. 90 App. Div. 176, 86 N. Y. S. 129. See ch. 12. Section CHAPTER 12 WANT OR FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION, CONTINUED 385. Assignees-Consideration of assignment. 386. Assignees-Want or failure of consideration. 387. Bona fide indorsees or holders--Rule. 388. Transfer after maturity. 389. Rule as to payment of value, its basis and qualifications— Bona fide indorsees or holders. 390. 391. 392. Rule as to value-Payment of pre-existing debt-Bona fide indorsees or holders. Rule as to value-Decisions contra or qualitative. Banks-Distinction between crediting amount of note on undrawn deposit and crediting on pre-existing indebtedness -Bona fide holder. 393. Parting with value-Surrender by creditor of debtor's own note-Receiving negotiable note of third person. 394. Joint note of husband and wife-Outlawed debt of husband -Indorsee for past indebtedness-Indorsement by president payee to bank. 395. Rule as to value-Collateral security for pre-existing debt- 396. Rule as to value-Particular decisions. 397. Rule as to value-Specific exceptions. 398. Intermediary party-Holder from bona fide holder. 399. Paper issued by corporation-Bona fide holder. 400. 401. 402. 403. 404. 405. Want or failure of consideration subsequent to transfer- Suit in name of original party-Bona fide holder. Indorsement for transfer merely or to pass title. Section 406. Purchase-price notes-Acceptor. 407. Purchase-price notes-Guarantors. 408. Purchase-price notes-Bona fide holder or assignee. 409. Purchase-price notes-Property useless or of no value. 410. Purchase-price notes-Land-Warranty. 411. Purchase-price notes-Personal property-Warranty. 412. Purchase-price notes-Instances in general of want or failure of consideration. 414. Vendor or seller without title or interest-Loss of title. 415. Where property for which note is given is of some valueNo failure of consideration. 416. Rights of holder where prior indorsee held note as collateral security and for continuing credit-Lien. 417. Security for pre-existing debt-Additional consideration. 418. Payment of pre-existing debt-Bona fide holder against accommodation maker. 419. Payment of pre-existing debt-Particular rulings and opinions. 420. Payment of pre-existing debt-Bona fide indorsee against indorser. 421. 422. 423. 424. Payment of pre-existing debt-Drafts and bills-Payee- Accommodation paper-Consideration as between original or Accommodation paper-Bona fide holders-Assignees-Notice or knowledge. Accommodation paper-Particular decisions. 425. Accommodation acceptor-General rules and illustrations. 426. Accommodation acceptor, continued. 427. Accommodation acceptor-Exceptions and qualifications. 428. Accommodation acceptor-Bill payable to order. 429. Accommodation paper-Taking before acceptance. 430. Accommodation paper-Conflict of laws-Acceptance. 431. Accommodation check-Bank check. 432. Accommodation indorsers-Availability of defenses-General rule. Section 433434. Accommodation indorsers-Application of rule. Accommodation indorsers-Qualifications of and exceptions to rule. 435. Accommodation paper taken after maturity-Bona fide holder-Want of consideration. 436. Accommodation of other parties in general. § 385. Assignees-Consideration of assignment. The assignment of a note is itself a contract which imports a consideration, and that consideration, prima facie, is the amount of the note.2 And the defenses which are available in action by the assignee of notes are those which existed at the time of the assignment, and not those which subsequently arose.3 The consideration of an assignment can not be questioned by the maker of a note when sued by an assignee. And if a failure of consideration is so insuffi 1 As to assignments generally see Daniels on Negot. Inst. (6th ed.), §§ 729-748a. 2 Lee v. Pile, 37 Ind. 107. 3 Marling v. Fitzgerald, 138 Wis. 93, 120 N. W. 388, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 177. 4 Geisreiter v. Sevier, 33 Ark. 522 ("whether the note was sold by the assignee for little or much did not concern Geisreiter, the maker of the note. * * * The maker of the note, when sued upon it by an assignee, can not question the consideration given by the assignee to the assignor for the transfer of the note"); Sims v. Everett, 113 Ark. 198, 168 S. W. 559, Ann. Cas. 1916C, 629; Anderson v. Wickliffe, 178 Cal. 120, 172 Pac. 381; Asiatic Tunnel Min. & Mill. Co. V. Stephenson, 63 Colo. 301, 165 Pac. 773; Shane v. Lowry, 48 Ind. 205. ("The answer alleges that there was no consideration for the assignment of the note. This is no reason why the defendants should not pay the note. If the payees assigned it, it is not for them to question the consideration paid for the assignment. If the payees gave it to the plaintiff, it is no concern of theirs. If the action were on the assignment the rule would be different"); Musselman v. Hays, 28 Ind. App. 360, 62 N. E. 1022 (holding that answer is demurrable which avers in action by indorsee, that nothing was paid for assignment); Oishei v. Craven, 11 Misc. 139, 31 N. Y. S. 1021, 24 Civ. Proc. 301, 65 N. Y. St. 114 (consideration is not necessary to an assignment as aganist the maker. "It is not necessary to allege consideration for the assignment for, if it be the fact that it is assigned, it is of no consequence whether it be for value or not. Certainly the maker can not complain"); Snyder v. Gruniger, 77 N. Y. S. 234 ("it is no defense to a party sued upon commercial paper to show that the transfer under which plaintiff holds it is without consideration or subject to equities between him and his assignor or colorable and merely for the purpose of collection, or |