The holder must take for value. If the holder does not give value for the note he is not a bona fide holder. Thus a receiver,1 as the receiver of an insolvent bank,2 or an assignee for the benefit of creditors,3 parts with nothing of value and is not a holder for value. He need not pay the full face of the instrument to be a holder for value,4 and the fact that he paid less than the face of the instrument, is material only if the discount is so great as to suggest that the bona fide holder knew of defenses to the instrument.5 The general rule is that a bona fide holder can recover the full amount of the instrument with interest, even if he has paid less than par therefor.6 Some authorities, however, limit the right of recovery of a bona fide holder of a note obtained through fraud, without consideration to the amount paid by him therefor, with interest.7 If A buys a note from B and gives B his own note therefor, A is a holder for value of the note transferred by B, even if B was the agent of the real owner of the note without authority to sell, if A did not know this and if A's note is in the hands of a bona fide holder.8 If A gives credit on his account with B the transferrer of negotiable paper for such paper, A takes the same for value.9 It has been said that it is not the giving credit but honoring checks to the extent of such credit that makes the bank a holder for value,10 and that until such credit is checked out, A is not a holder for value.11 Collateral security for a contemporaneous debt constitutes value.12 Payment of a pre-existing debt constitutes "value."13 An indorsee for collateral against his debtor. If a defense exists which can be interposed against any but a bona fide holder, he can recover only the amount of his claim,14 and if such debt is paid he ceases at once to be a bona fide holder,15 nor can the original holder claim any protection because the instrument has once been pledged as collateral.16 Whether collateral security for an antecedent debt constitutes "value " is a question on which authorities are in conflict, some courts holding that it is,17 others that it is not18 If any right of value is surrendered by the party taking the collateral security,19 as where in consideration of such collateral riss v. Tavel, 87 Tenn. 386; 3 L. R. A. 414; 11 S. W. 93.

6 Pavey v. Stauffer, 45 La. Ann. 353; 19 L. R. A. 716; 12 So. 512; Goshen National Bank v. Bingham, 118 N. Y. 349; 16 Am. St. Rep. 765; 7 L. R. A. 595; 23 N. E. 180.

7 Hays v. Plummer. 126 Cal. 107; 77 Am. St. Rep. 153; 58 Pac. 447; French v. Turner, 15 Ind. 59; Doll v. Hollenbeck, 19 Neb. 639.

8 Bishop v. Chase, 156 Mo. 158; 56 S. W. 1080.

1 Litchfield Bank v. Peck, 29 Conn. 384.

2 Colton v. Loan Association, 90 Md. 85; 78 Am. St. Rep. 431; 46 L. R. A. 388; 45 Atl. 23.

3 Roberts v. Hall, 37 Conn. 205; 9 Am. Rep. 308.

4 Goodman v. Simons, 20 How. (U. S.) 343; Wheeler v. Guild. 20 Pick. (Mass.) 545; 32 Am. Dec.

231; Kitchen v. Loudenback, 48 O. S. 177; 29 Am. St. Rep. 540;

26 N. E. 979; ($367.50 paid for a note for $450) ; Oppenheimer v. Bank, 97 Tenn. 19; 56 Am. St. Rep. 778; 33 L. R. A. 767; 36 S. W. 705. (Discount of twenty per cent.) Mc-Namara v. Jose, 28 Wash. 461; 68 Pac. 903. (Discounted for one-half its face value.)

5 Williams v. Huntington, 68 Md. 590; 6 Am. St. Rep. 477; 13 Atl. 336; Wilson v. Denton, 82 Tex. 531;

27 Am. St. Rep. 908; 18 S. W. 620.

6 Wade v. Ry., 149 U. S. 327; Murphy v. Lucas, 58 Ind. 360; Oldham v. Turner, 3 B. Mon. (Ky.) 67; Kitchen v. Loudenback, 48 O. S. 177: 29 Am. St. Rep. 540; 26 N. E. 979.

7 Richards v. Monroe, 85 la. 359; 39 Am. St. Rep. 301; 52 N. W. 339; (by statute) ; DeKay v. Water Co., 38 N. J. Eq. 158; Oppenheimer v. Bank, 97 Tenn. 19; 56 Am. St. Rep. 778; 33 L. R. A. 767; 36 S. W. 705; Green v. Stuart, 7 Baxt. (Tenn.) 422; Petty v. Hannum, 2 Humph. (Tenn.) 102; 36 Am. Dee. 303.

8 Wilson v. Denton, 82 Tex. 531; 27 Am. St. Rep. 908; 18 S. W. 620.

9 American Exchange Nat. Bk. v. Theummler, 195 111. 90; 88 Am. St. Rep. 177; 58 L. R. A. 51; 62 N. E. 932; Shaw v. Jacobs, 89 Ia. 713, 719; 48 Am. St. Rep. 411; 21 L. R. A. 440; 55 N. W. 333; 56 N. W. 684.

10Dreilling v. Bank, 43 Kan. 197; 19 Am. St. Rep. 126; 23 Pac. 94.

11 Dresser v. Construction Co., 93 U. S. 92; Morrison v. Bank, 9 Okla. 697; 60 Pac. 273; Dougherty v. Bank, 93 Pa. St. 227; 39 Am. Rep. 750.

12 Bank v. Mfg. Co., 52 Fed. 98; 18 L. R. A. 201; Des Moines National Bank v. Chisholm. 71 la. 675; 33 N. W. 234; St. Paul Gaslight Co. v. Sandstone, 73 Minn. 225; 75 N. W. 1050; Connecticut, etc., Co. v. Trumbo (Neb.), 90 N. W. 216; Connecticut, etc., Co. v. Fletcher, 61 Neb. 166; 85 N. W. 59; Noyes v. Landon, 59 Vt. 569; 10 Atl. 342; Bowman v. Van Keuren, 29 Wis. 209; 9 Am. Rep. 554.

13 Levy, etc., Co. v. Kauffman, 114 Fed. 170; 52 C. C. A. 126; Tabor v. Bank, 48 Ark. 454; 3 Am. St. Rep. 241; 3 S. W. 805; Lee v. Johnson, 110 Ga. 286; 34 S. E. 568; Foy v. Blackstone, 31 111. 538; 83 Am. Dec. 246; McKnight v. Knisely, 25 Ind. 336; 87 Am. Dee. 364; Frank v. Quast, 86 Ky. 649; 6 S. W. 909; Boston, etc., Co. v. Steuer, 183 Mass. 140; 97 Am. St. Rep. 426; 66 N. E. 646; Blanchard v. Stevens, 3 Cush. (Mass.) 162; 50 Am. Dec. 723; Carlisle v. Wish-art, 11 Ohio 172; overruling Riley v. Johnson, 8 Ohio 526; Tradesmen's National Bank v. Looney, 99 Tenn. 278; 63 Am. St. Rep. 830; 38 L. R. A. 837; 42 S. W. 149; Herman v. Gunter, 83 Tex. 66; 29 Am. St. Rep. 632; 18 S. W. 428; Payne v. Zell. 98 Va. 294; 36 S. E. 379. Contra, Fersecurity is a bona fide holder only to the amount of his claim

14 St. Paul National Bank v. Cannon, 46 Minn. 95; 24 Am. St. Rep. 189; 48 N. W. 526; Crawford v. Spencer, 92 Mo. 498; 1 Am. St. Rep. 745; 4 S. W. 713.

15 First National Bank v. Mann, 94 Tenn. 17; 27 Am. St. Rep. 565; 27 L. R. A. 565; 27 S. W. 1015.

16Booher v. Allen, 153 Mo. 613; 55 S. W. 238.

17 Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. (U. S.) 1. (A case arising in New York, in which the United States supreme court refused to follow the New York rule.) Hamilton v. Fowler, 99 Fed. 18; 40 C. C. A. 47; Sackett v. Johnson, 54 Cal. 107; Joliet, etc., Bank v. Adam, 138 111. 483; 28 N. E. 955; National Bank v. Dakin, 54 Kan. 656; 45 Am. St. Rep. 299; 39 Pac. 180; Fisher v. Fisher, 98 Mass. 303; Rosemond v. Graham, 54 Minn. 323; 40 Am. St. Rep. 336; 56 N. W. 38; Yellowstone National Bank v. Gagnon, 19 Mont. 402; 61 Am. St. Rep. 520; 44 L. R. A. 243; 48 Pac. 762; First National Bank v. Stockell, 92 Tenn. 252; 20 L. R. A. 605; 21 S. W. 523; Mercantile Bank v. Boggs, 48 W. Va. 289; 37 S. E. 587.

18 Cable v. Buchanan, 109 la. 661; 80 N. W. 1066; Galbraith v. McLaughlin, 91 la. 399; 59 N. W. 338; May v. Quimby, 3 Bush. (Ky.) 96, 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; Maynard v. Davis, 127 Mich. 571; 86 N. W. 1051; Loewen v. Forsee, 137 Mo. 29; 59 Am. St. Rep. 489; 38 S. W. 712; United States National Bank v. Ewing, 121 N. Y. 506; 27 Am. St. Rep. 615; 30 N. E. 501; Coddington v. Bay, 20 Johns. (N. Y.) 637; 11 Am. Dec. 342. (The leading case on this point.) Brooks v. Sullivan, 129 N. C. 190; 39 S. E. 822; Porter v. An-drus, 10 N. D. 558; 88 N. W. 567; Cleveland v. Bank, 16 O. S. 236; 88 Am. Dec. 445; Renzor v. Hatch,

7 O. S. 248 (obiter, as the note was held valid as between the original parties) ; Roxborough v. Messick, 6 O. S. 448; 67 Am. Dec. 346; Al-toona, etc., Bank v. Dunn, 151 Pa. St. 228; 31 Am. St. Rep. 742; 25 Atl. 80; Bank v. Johnston, 105 Tenn. 521; 59 S. W. 131.

19 Payne v. Bensley, 8 Cal. 260; 68 Am. Dec. 318; Ruddick v. Lloyd, 15 la. 441; 83 Am. Dec. 423; Amerhe agrees upon an extension of time,20 or surrenders other collateral,21 or surrenders other collateral and gives an extension of time,22 he is a holder for value.