The only conflict concerning the enforceability of a negotiable instrument,given for a gambling debt arises when it has come into the hands of a holder in due course. In regard to illegality generally the rule is clear that unless a statute clearly declares void a negotiable instrument in the hands of all parties a holder in due course can recover.61 But some statutes so plainly de-

Union Collection Co. v. Buckman, 150 Cal. 159, 88 Pac. 708, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 568, 119 Am. St. Rep. 164; International Bank v. Van Kirk, 39 111. App. 23; Campbell Co. Bank v. Schmitt, 143 Ky. 421, 136 S. W. 625; Cutler v. Welsh, 43 N. H. 497; Hol-lingsworth v. Moulton, 53 Hun, 91, 6 N. Y. S. 362; Haley v. Long, 1 Peck (Tenn.), 93.

50 Union Collection Co. v. Buckman, 150 Cal. 159, 88 Pac. 708, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 568, 119 Am. St. Rep. 164; Emery v. Royal, 117 Ind. 299, 20 N. E. 150; Creutz v. Heil, 89 Ky. 429, 12 Sw W. 926; Pitkin v. Noyes, 48 N. H. 294, 97 Am. Dec. 615, 2 Am. Rep. 218; Grandin v. Grandin, 49 N. J. L. 508, 9 Atl. 756, 60 Am. Rep. 642; Haley v. Long, 1 Peck (Tenn.), 93; Reed v. Brewer (Tex. Civ. App.), 36 S. W. 99; Everingham v. Meigham, 55 Wis. 354, 13 N. W. 269. But see Hyams v. Stuart King, [1908] 2 K. B. 696.

51 In the case cited below, recovery was allowed: Birch v. Jervis, 3 C. & P. 379 (bill for not opposing bankrupt's discharge); Simpson v. Pogson, 3 Dowl. & R. 567 (note for fraudulent preference); Bluthenthal v. Columbia, 175 Ala. 398, 57 So. 814 (note for illegal sale of liquor); Moseley v. Selma Nat. Bank, 3 Ala. App. 614, 57 So. 91 (falsely dated note made on Sunday); Citizens, Nat. Bank v. Bucheit, 14 Ala. App. 511, 71 So. 82, 72 So. 1019 (note of foreign corporation doing business illegally); Commercial Nat. Bank v. Jordan, 71 Fla. 566, 71 So. 760 (note given in performance of illegal corporate contract); Hunt v. Davenport, 138 Ga. 622, 75 S. E. 644 [note illegally omitting to state that it was for price of patent. But a holder in due course was held not entitled to recover in Exchange Nat. Bank v. Henderson, 139 Ga. 260, 77 S. E. 36, 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 549, on a note given to bribe a voter, or in International Agricultural Corporation v. Spencer, 17 Ga. App. 649, 87 S. E. 1101, on a note given for fertiliser not properly inspected or labelled]; State Bank v. Lawrence, 177 Ind. 515, 96 N. E. 947, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 326 (note for services of unlicensed physician); Pontiac Sav. Bank v. Reinforced Concrete Pipe Co., 178 Mich. 261, 144 N. W. 486 (note to partnership which had not filed required certificate); Farmers' Saving Bank v. Reed, 192 Mo. App. 344, 180 S. W. 1002 (note for illegal assignment of liquor license); Lawrence v. Clark, 36 N. Y. 128 (note for extra payment to composition creditor); Cowing v. Altman, 71 N. Y. 435, 27 Am. Rep. 70 (note for illegal fees to assignee in bankruptcy); Carroll-ton Press Brick Co. v. Davis (Tex. Civ. App.), 155 S. W. 1046 [note of foreign corporation illegally doing business within the State; but in Jones v. Aber-nathy (Tex. Civ. App.), 174 S. W. 682, and Republic Trust Co. v. Taylor clare the instrument void that under them even an innocent holder has been denied recovery.52 The possible effect of the Negotiable Instruments Law upon the question has been previously considered.53 Unless the object of the law is to protect the maker of the instrument as one imposed upon, rather than to prevent and punish the transaction, the holder in due course should clearly be allowed to recover, for the result of a failure to allow recovery is that the maker, - a party to the illegality- escapes liability and the wrongdoing payee has obtained a price for the instrument from the innocent purchaser, which the latter may have trouble in recovering.

The tendency of the modern law in regard to instruments illegal because based on a gambling consideration is to protect the holder in due course.54 But a number of decisions resting generally on the construction of local statutes 55 have denied recovery to the innocent holder.56 Even where a statute makes the instrument void in the hands of a holder in due course, an exception is made if the holder was induced to purchase by a representation or assurance of the maker, subsequent to the inception of the instrument.57

(Tex. Civ. App.) 184 S. W. 772, notes in violation of a special statute were held absolutely void]; Gray v. Boyle, 55 Wash. 578, 104 Pac. 828, 133 Am. St. Rep. 1042 (note for illegal rebate of insurance premium); American Sav. Bank v. Helgeeen, 64 Wash. 54, 116 Pac. 837, Ann. Cas. 1913 A. 390 (usurious note); Samson v. Ward, 147 Wis. 48, 132 N. W. 629 (note illegally omitting to state it was for price of stallion); Crombie v. Overholtzer, 11 U. C. Q. B. 55 (note for goods illegally sold on Sunday); Canadian Bank of Commerce v. Gurley, 30 U. P. C. P. 583 (note for compounding felony). 52 Birch v. Jervis, 3 C. A P. 379 (bill for signing bankrupt's certificate); Lowe v. Waller, 2 Doug. 736 (usury); German Bank v. DeShon, 41 Ark. 331 (usury); Ensign v. Coffelt, 102 Ark. 568, 145 S. W. 231 (note for patent); Perry Savings Bank v. Fitzgerald, 167 Iowa, 446, 149 N. W. 497 (usury); Johnson v. Grayson, 230 Mo. 380, 130 S. W. 673 (usury); Unger v. Boas, 13 Pa. St. 601; Cohn v. Lunn, 133 Tenn. 547, 182 S. W. 584 (notes for patent); In re Summerfeldt v. Worts, 12 Ont. 48 (check for gaming losses); and see

Georgia and Texas cases in the preceding note.

53 Supra, 51159.

54 Fitch v. Jones, 5 El. & Bl. 238; Edwards v. Dick, 4 B. & Aid. 212; Haight v. Joyce, 2 Cal. 64; Union Co-lection Co. v. Buckman, 150 Cal. 159, 88 Pac. 708, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 568, 119 Am. St. Rep. 164; Boughner v. Meyer, 5 Col. 71, 40 Am. Rep. 139; Sullivan v. German Nat. Bank, 18 Colo. App. 99, 70 Pac. 162; Adams v. Woolridge, 3 Scam. (4 11l.) 255; Pope v. Hanke, 155 111. 617, 40 N. E. 839, 28 L. R. A. 568; Biegler v. Merchants' L. & T. Co., 164 111. 197, 45 N. E. 512; Sondheim v. Gilbert, 117 Ind. 71, 18 N. E. 687, 5 L. R. A. 432, 10 Am. St. Rep. 23 (cf. Irwin v. Marquett, 26 Ind. App. 383, 59 N. E. 38, 84 Am. St. Rep. 297); Kushner v. Abbott, 156 la. 598, 137 N. W. 913; Higginbotham v. McGready, 183 Mo. 96, 81 S. W. 883, 105 Am. St. Rep. 461; Store Brewing So. v. Skirving, 94 Neb. 215, 142 N. W; 669; Northern Nat. Bank v. Arnold, 187 Pa. 356, 40 Atl. 794. See also Griffith v. Sears, 112 Pa. 523, 4 Atl. 492; Hurlburt v. Straub, 54 W. Va. 303, 46 S. E. 163; Stevens v. Preund, 169 Wis. 68, 171 N. W. 300.