Any defense which is allowed, either expressly or by statute, or by the necessary effect of a statute, may be made. So under a statute allowing " immoral and illegal considerations " to be interposed as a defense against a bona fide holder, a contract to stifle criminal prosecution is a defense to a note given thereunder.1 Thus statutes which make notes void when given on a gambling consideration,2 or as usury,3 or for intoxicating liquors,4 or by Federal Statute, for land leased from Indians,5 or omitting such words as " peddlers' note "6 or " given for a patent right,"7 permit such defenses to be set up against bona fide holders for value. Even under such statutes the maker may estop himself from setting up such defense by stating to the prospective indorsee before the purchase that the note is valid.8

2 Merritt v. Boyden, 191 111. 136; 85 Am. St. Rep. 246: 60 N. E. 907; Trigg v. Taylor, 27 Mo. 245; 72 Am. Dec. 263; Garrard v. Hadden, 67 Pa. St. 82; 5 Am. Rep. 412.

3 Winter v. Pool, 104 Ala. 5S0; 16 So. 543; Merritt v. Boyden, 191 111. 136; 85 Am. St. Pep. 246; 60 N. E. 907; Cason v. Bank, 97 'Ky. 487; 53 Am. St. Rep. 418; 31 S. W. 40; Weidman v. Symes, 120 Mich. 657; 77 Am. St; Rep. 603; 79 N. W. 894.

4 Noll v. Smith, 64 Ind. 511; 31 Am. Rep. 131; Brown v. Reed, 79 Pa. St. 370; 21 Am. Rep. 75. Contra, Wait v. Pomeroy, 20 Mich. 425; 4 Am. Rep. 395.

5 Fordyce v. Kosminski, 49 Ark. 40; 4 Am. St. Rep. 18; 3 S. W. 892; Knoxville National Bank v. Clark.

51 la. 264; 33 Am. Rep. 129; 1 X. W. 491; Burrows v. Klunk, 70 Md. 451; 14 Am. St. Rep. 371; 3 L. R. A. 576; 17 Atl. 378; Searles v. Seipp, 6 S. D. 472; 61 N. W. 804.

6 Conger v. Crabtree, 88 Ia. 536; 45 Am. St. Pep. 249; 55 N. W. 335. If alteration by stranger to contract, bona fide holder may recover on original consideration. Walsh v. Hunt, 120 Cal. 46; 39 L. R. A. 697;

52 Pac. 115. If by party, no recovery. Schwartz v. Wilmer, 90 Md. 136; 44 Atl. 1059; Moss v. Maddux, 108 Tenn. 405; 67 S. W. 855.