There are certain defenses, however, which may be made even against a bona fide holder for value. Any defense which goes to the capacity of the party against whom the liability is sought to be enforced, may be made. Thus infancy,1 insanity,2

9 Coors v. Bank, 14 Colo. 202; 7 L. R. A. 845; 23 Pac. 328.

10 Hamilton v. Fowler. 99 Fed. 18; 40 C. C. A. 47; Newman v. Blades (Ky.). 54 S. W. 849; Lynchburg National Bank v. Seott. 91 Va. 652; 50 Am. St. Rep. 860; 29 L. R. A. 827; 22 S. E. 487.

11 Wirt v. Stubblefield. 17 App. D. C. 283.

12 Citizens' State Bank v. Nore. - Neb. - ; 60 L. R. A. 737; 93 N. W. 160.

13 National Bank v. Tick. - N. D. - ; 99 N. W. 63.

14 Holmes v. Gardner. 50 O. S. 167; 20 L. R. A. 329; 33 N. E. 644.

15 King v. Bank. 127 Ala. 266; 28 So. 658: English-American, etc.. Co. v. Hiers. 112 Ga. 823: 38 S. E 103; First National Bank v. Skeen.

101 Mo. 683; 11 L. R. A. 748; 14 S. W. 732; Mayer v. Heidelbach, 123 N. Y. 332; 9 L. R. A. 850; 25 N. E. 418; Payne v. Zell. 98 Va. 294; 36 S. E. 379.

16 Hunter v. Clarke. 184 I11. 158; 75 Am. St. Rep. 160; 56 N. E. 297; Rice v. Jones. 103 N. C. 226; 14 Am. St. Rep. 801; 9 S. E. 571.

17 Nelson v. Brown. 140 Mo. 580; 62 Am. St. Rep. 755: 41 S. W. 960.

18 Manhattan Savings Institution v. Bank, 170 N. Y. 58; 88 Am. St. Rep. 640; 62 N. E. 1079.

1 Howard v. Simpkins. 70 Ga. 322.

2 American Trust Co. v. Boone,

102 Ga. 202; 66 Am. St. Rep. 167; 40 L. R. A. 250: 29 S. E. 182; Mc-Clain v. Davis. 77 Tnd. 419. Contra. Moore v. Hershey. 90 Pa. St. 196. If A sio-ns a note as aceommoand imbecility,3 may be set up against a bona fide holder whenever such defenses could have been set up against the original payee. Voluntary intoxication has, however, been held not to be a valid defense against a bona fide holder.4 Coverture may be interposed as a defense against a bona fide holder.5