affirmative. His reasons for the conclusion are cogent and satisfactory, and in the course of the opinion he remarked that "it was not disputed on the argument, nor could it be, that if instead of a check the security had been a bill or note, payable at a subsequent date, however short, the plaintiffs' title would have been unimpeachable;" to which he also added, that the proposition had been established by many authorities, both in that country and in the American courts.

No attempt was made to controvert that proposition as applied to bills or notes payable at a future day; but the defendant insisted that inasmuch as the check was payable on demand the rule did not apply, as there was no consideration, because it could not be implied that there was any agreement for delay. Suffice it to say in that regard that the court decided that the supposed distinction "had no foundation either in principle or upon authority," and proceeded to remark that it does not follow that the legal element of consideration is entirely absent where the security is payable immediately.

Forbearance is doubtless a good consideration for the transfer of such an instrument; but a valuable consideration in the sense of the law, as the court remarked in that case, may consist either in some right, interest, profit, or benefit accruing to the one party, or some extension of time of payment, detriment, loss, or responsibility given, suffered, or undertaken by the

other.

Call-loans may be regarded as payable on demand, and, inasmuch as the collateral in this case was payable at a future day, the implication is not an unreasonable one that the arrangement operated as an injury to the holder and as a benefit to the debtor and pledgor. Such a reason may doubtless have weight; but it is by no means certain that it is the true foundation of the title of the holder, as other authorities hold that a negotiable security transferred for such a purpose is in some sense a conditional payment of the debt, the condition being that the debt revives if the security is not realized. Belshaw v. Bush, 11 C. B. 191-205; Griffiths v. Owen, 13 Mee. & W. 58, 64.

Still not satisfied, the defendant in the case (Currie v. Misa) appealed from the judgment of affirmance rendered in the

Exchequer Chamber to the House of Lords. Much instruction is derived in respect to the issue between the parties by referring to the propositions maintained by the counsel of the appellant, of which the following are the most important: 1. That there was a total failure of consideration, inasmuch as the defendant Misa never received any value for his draft except the four bills which were dishonored. 2. That the check in question was not a bill of exchange, nor a promissory note, nor an order for the payment of money on demand. 3. That the existence of a past debt is not a sufficient consideration for the transfer of the check.

Enough is reported of the arguments for the appellant to show that nothing was left undone by his counsel in their power to do to sustain those propositions; but the learned judges overruled them all, and affirmed the judgment rendered in the two lower courts. In giving the principal opinion, Lord Chelmsford said that he entertained no doubt that, as between the defendant and the depositor of the check, there was a sufficient consideration, and that the bankers were holders for value, and he proceeded to remark that the counsel of the appellant admit that if the judges are of that opinion it will dispose of the case. All the judges concurred that the holders were holders for value, and the result was the same as in the court of original jurisdiction. Misa v. Currie, 1 App. Cas. 554, 563.

Corresponding views are held in the Queen's Bench, in the Court of Appeals, and in the High Court of Chancery. Where a party by means of a false pretence, or condition which he does not fulfil, procures another party to give him a note or acceptance in favor of a third person, to whom he pays it and who receives it bona fide for value, the Queen's Bench decided that the giver remains liable to pay the same, because his acceptance or transfer of the same imports value prima facie, and he can only relieve himself from his promise to pay the holder by showing that he is not a holder for value, or that he received the instrument in bad faith, or with notice of its infirmity. Watson v. Russell, 3 B. & S. 34, 40.

Two of the justices concurred in that proposition without any qualification, and the Chief Justice also concurred in the

same to the extent of the debt of the holder it was pledged to secure, which is the same rule that Shaw, C. J., with the concurrence of all his associates, adopted nearly twenty years earlier. Chicopee Bank v. Chapin, 8 Metc. (Mass.) 40.

Commercial securities, when transferred to discharge a preexisting debt, it is admitted, give the holder a good title which will shut out prior equities; and the Court of Appeals in a recent case decided that there was no difference in that regard between past and present consideration to be found in the books, and held that the transfer of a bill of lading for a valuable consideration to a bona fide transferee defeats the right of stoppage in transitu of the unpaid vendor of the goods, although the consideration was past and not given at the time the bill of lading was delivered to the transferee by the lawful holder. Leask v. Scott, 2 Q. B. D. 376, 380.

Certain bankers pressed their debtors for better security, and the debtors, having promised to comply with the request, hypothecated merchandise for the purpose, evidenced by warehouse certificates, which the debtors agreed to deliver as soon as they could be procured from the warehouse. They, the debtors, procured the warrants, but refused to deliver the same, when the plaintiffs instituted the present suit, to which the respondents demurred, insisting that the existence of the debt is no sufficient consideration for such an agreement. Among other things, the respondents contended that the allegations of the bill did not exhibit a transaction where the complainants promised to abstain from suing their demand for any certain time; but the Vice-Chancellor held that the bankers did in effect give, and that the respondents did receive, the benefit of some degree of forbearance and benefit that they would not have obtained if they had not made the agreement, and the demurrer was accordingly overruled. Alliance Bank v. Broom & Co., 2 Drew. & Sm. 289.

Without more, these authorities are sufficient to show that there is but one voice upon the subject in the courts of the parent country, and that they speak to the point with a degree of unanimity and uniformity well calculated to excite admiration and to inspire confidence that the rule of decision. is both correct and just. Not only every court, but every

judge of every court, in that country concurs in the proposition, that the holder of such a negotiable security before maturity, as collateral to a pre-existing debt, without notice of any prior equities, is a bona fide holder for value in the usual course of business, and that his title to the instrument is good, and wholly unaffected by any such prior equities between the antecedent parties. Text-writers everywhere adopt the same rule, and recognize and commend it as the correct and true rule of decision.

So, if a bill or note be indorsed as a collateral security, says Chitty, that is an adequate consideration to enable the party to sue thereon, though he advanced no new credit on the bill or note at the time; and he lays down the same rule as to the receipt of a bill or note in payment of a pre-existing debt. Chitty, Bills (13th ed.), 74.

In the ordinary course of things, says Mr. Justice Story, the holder is presumed to be the prima facie holder of such a security for value, and he is not bound to give evidence that he gave any value for it, until the other party establishes the want or failure or illegality of the consideration, or that the bill had been lost or stolen before it came to the possession of the holder. It may then be incumbent on him to show that he has given value for it, because he ought not, under such circumstances, to be placed in a better situation than the antecedent parties through whom he obtained the instrument. Story, Bills (4th ed.), sect. 193; Story, Notes (7th ed.), sects. 195, 196.

A creditor, says Byles, may agree to take a bill as collateral security for a debt already due, without affecting his present right to sue for the debt; but, if a creditor elects so to do, he becomes the trustee to that extent of the debtor, and is bound to perform the duties of a holder in respect to presentment and notice of dishonor, and, if he fail to do so, the parties only. liable conditionally are discharged, as no one but the actual holder can perform those duties. Byles, Bills (5th Am. ed.), 369; Peacock v. Purcell, 32 L. J. 256; s. c. 14 C. B. N. s. 728.

Litigated cases often arise where there is a present consideration given for the transfer; and Mr. Daniel regards it as

agreed that the holder of the collateral security, in all such cases, is a bona fide holder for value, if he took the security without notice of any equities between the antecedent parties, or if there was any agreement, express or implied, to give time of payment of the debt to the debtor; but he admits that, where neither of these conditions exists in the case, the question is one of more difficulty. Those two propositions he supports by sound reasons and convincing suggestions, and then proceeds to examine the argument for and against the proposition, that the same conclusion should be reached even where there is no new consideration other than what arises from the relation of debtor and creditor, nor any express agreement to extend the time of payment. His view is, that the issue in such a case must turn upon the question whether there is any implied suspension of the prior debt until the collateral becomes due, and that an implied agreement is as binding as one expressed in terms, of which it is supposed no one entertains the least doubt.

Different examples are put by the author, and the proper presumption in each supposed case is stated; but he finally comes to the conclusion that, inasmuch as the holder in such a case becomes a party to the collateral security, and that he thereby assumes the burden as such holder of fixing the liability of the indorser, he is properly to be regarded as a holder for value, if he took the collateral in good faith and without notice of any equities between the antecedent parties. 1 Daniel, Negotiable Securities (2d ed.), sects. 827-830; Blanchard v. Stevens, 3 Cush. (Mass.) 162, 167; Maitland v. Citizens' National Bank of Baltimore, 40 Md. 540, 564.

Three of the theories involved in the controversy are presented by Mr. Parsons for careful examination: 1. Where negotiable paper is received in payment of an antecedent debt; but further discussion of that topic is unnecessary, as it is conceded in this case that the title of the holder in such a case is as good as if the contents were paid in cash. 2. Where it is received as collateral security for a pre-existing debt. 3. Where it is received as collateral security for a debt contracted at the date of the transfer.

Two objections, as the author states, are usually taken to each of the last two theories: 1. That, as no new consideration