If a negotiable instrument has been transferred to one who is not a bona fide holder for value, his rights are those and only those, of the person who transferred the instrument to him. Any defense which could have been made against the transferrer, can be made against the transferee.1 Thus the maker may, as against an assignee who is not a bona fide holder interpose the defense of want of power of the agent issuing the instrument,2 or of the partner issuing it,3 that the contract was under the circumstances ultra vires4 that the instrument was induced by fraud,5 or duress,6 that the maker has the right of set-off,7 breach of condition releasing a party thereto as that the maker had contracted for a specified application of the proceeds of the note,8 illegality,9 that the instrument was not without consideration,10 or that the consideration for which the instrument was given has failed.11 As between the promisor and an assignee who is not a bona fide holder for value, it follows that the question of negotiability is immaterial.

N. E. 841; Shaw v. Camp, 160 I11. 425; 43 N. E. 608; Grove v. Jeager, 60 111. 249; Parish v. Stone, 14 Pick. (Mass.) 198; 25 Am. Dec. 378; McBryan v. Elevator Co., 130 Mich. Ill; 89 X. W. 6S3; Graham V.Alexander, 123 Mich. 168; 81 X. W. 1084; Voorhees v. Combs, 33 X. J. L. 494: Andrews v. Schmidt, 10 X. D. 1; 84 X. W. 568; Starr v. Starr, 9 O. S. 74; Hamor v. Moore, 8 O. S. 239.

5 McTighe v. McKee, 70 Ark. 293; 67 S. W. 754.

6 Adams v. Hackett, 27 X. H. 289; 59 Am. Dec. 376.

7 Douthart v. Congdon, 197 I11. 349; 64 X. E. 348.

8 Friend v. Miller, 52 Kan. 139; 39 Am. St. Rep. 340; 34 Pae. 397; Haynes v. Rudd, 102 X. Y. 372; 55 Am. Rep. 815; 7 X. E. 287.

9 Hanauer v. Doane, 12 Wall. (U. S.) 342; Ruddell v. Landers, 25 Ark. 238; 94 Am. Dec. 717.

10 Means v. Snbers, 115 Ga. 371; 41 S. E. 633; Cooper v. King, 73 la. 136; 34 X. W. 781; Dickinson v. Hall, 14 Pick. (Mass.) 217; 26 Am. Dec. 390.

11 Provident, etc., Co. v. Mercer County, 170 U. S. 593; O'Keeffe v. Bank, 49 Kan. 347; 33 Am. St. Rep. 370; 30 Pae. 473.

12 Lookout Bank v. Aull, 93 Tenn. 645; 42 Am. St. Rep. 934; 27 S. W. 1014.

1 Hays v. Plummer, 126 Cal. 107; 77 Am. St. Rep. 153; 58 Pae. 447; Mullanphy Savings Bank v. Schott, 135 111. 655; 25 Am. St. Rep. 401; 26 N. E. 640; Pavey v. Stauffer, 45 La. Ann. 353; 19 L. R. A. 716; 12 So. 512; Smith v. Bibber, 82 Me. 34; 17 Am. St. Rep. 464; 19 Atl. 89; First National Bank v. Strauss, 66 Miss. 479; 14 Am. St. Rep. 579; 6 So. 232; .Sackett v. Montgomery. 57 Xeb. 424; 73 Am. St. Rep. 522; 77 N. W. 1083.