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.1 Any defense which could have been made against his transferor, can be made against the transferee.2 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,3or of the partner issuing it;4 that the contract was under the circumstances ultra vires;5 that the instrument was induced by fraud,6 especially fraud in the execution,7 or by duress;8 that the instrument was to be held in escrow;9 that the maker has the right of set-off;10 breach of condition releasing a party thereto as that the maker had contracted for a specified application of the proceeds of the note;11 illegality,12 as that the instrument is usurious;13 that the instrument was without consideration;14 or that the consideration for which the instrument was given has failed;15 or that the instrument has been paid;16 breach of warranty;17 or that the maker is an accommodation party, and that the real creditor has had sufficient funds on deposit with the holder, subject to the payment of such debt.18 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 for the purpose of affecting the defenses which the promisor may make.

7 Hatfield v. Jakway, 102 Neb. 831, 170 N. W. 181.

8 Florence Cotton Oil Co. v. Anglin, 105 Ark. 672, 43 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1109, 152 S. W. 295.

9 McTighe v. McKee, 70 Ark. 293, 07 S. W. 754.

10 Adams v. Hackett, 27 N. II. 289, 59 Am. Dec. 376.

11 Florence Cotton Oil Co. v. Anglin, 105 Ark. 672, 43 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1109, 152 S. W. 295.

12 Douthart v. Congdon, 197 111. 349, 64 N. E. 348.

13 Mitchell v. Campbell, 111 Miss. 806, 72 So. 231.

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

15 Hanauer v. Doane, 79 U. S. (12 Wall.) 342, 20 L. ed. 439; Ruddell v. Lauders, 25 Ark. 238, 94 Am. Dec. 717.

16 Pease v. Globe Realty Co., 141 Ia. 482, 42 L. R. A. (N.S.) 6, 119 N. W. 975.

17 Georgia. Means v. Subers. 115 Ga. 371, 41 S. E. 633.

Iowa. Cooper v. King, 73 Ia. 136, 34 N. W. 781.

Massachusetts. Dickinson v. Hall, 31 Mass. (14 Pick.) 217, 25 Am. Dec. 390.

New York. Smith v. Dotterweicli, 200 N. Y. 299, 33 L. R. A. (N.S.) 892, 93 N. E. 985.

Oklahoma. Nettograph Machine Co. v. Brown, 28 Okla. 436, 34 L. R. A. (N.S.) 737, 114 Pac. 1102; Summers v. Alexander, 30 Okla. 198, 38 L. R. A. (N.S.) 787, 120 Pac. 601.

18 Provident, etc., Co. v. Mercer County, 170 U. S. 593, 42 L. ed. 1156; O'Keefe v. Bank, 49 Kan. 347, 33 Am. St. Rep. 370, 30 Pac. 473.

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

1 Colorado. Carlson v. Rensink, - Colo. - , 3 A. L. R. 72, 173 Pac. 542.

Kansas. First National Bank v. Lyons Exchange Bank, 100 Kan. 194, 164 Pac. 137.

Michigan. Hulett v. Marine Savings Bank, 143 Mich. 219, 4 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1042, 106 N. W. 879.

Minnesota. Farmers' State Bank v. McGrath, 141 Minn. 281, 170 N. W. 209.

Montana. Buhler v. Loftus, 53 Mont. 546, 165 Pac. 601.

New York. Schlesinger v. Lehmaier. 191 N. Y. 69, 123 Am. St. Rep. 591, 16 L. R. A. (N.S.) 626, 83 N. E. 657.

North Carolina. Sykes v. Everett, 167 N. Car. 600, 4 A. L. R. 751, 83 S. E. 585.

Wisconsin. Gulbranson-Dickinson Co. v. Hopkins, - Wis. - , 175 N. W. 93.

Wyoming. Capitol Hill State Bank v. Rawlins National Bank, 24 Wyom. 423, 160 Pac. 1171.

If a note and mortgage are assigned as a part of one transaction, the holder has knowledge that the note is a mortgage note; and if such instrument is not fully negotiable in that jurisdiction, he acquires no greater right than that of his assignor. Buhler v. Loftus, 53 Mont. 546, 165 Pac. 601.

2 United States. Bassick v. Aetna Explosives Co., 246 Fed. 974.

Arizona. Lentz v. Landers, - Ariz. - , 185 Pac. 821.

California. Hays v. Plummer, 126 Cal. 107, 77 Am. St. Rep. 153, 58 Pac. 447.

Colorado. Denver Suburban Homes A Water Co. v. Fugate, - Colo. - , 168 Pac. 33; Carlson v. Rensink, - Colo. - , 3 A. L. R. 72, 173 Pac. 542.

Illinois. Mullanphy Savings Bank v. Schott, 135 111. 655, 25 Am. St. Rep. 401, 26 N. E. 640.

Louisiana. Pavey v. Stauffer,, 45 La. Ann. 353, 19 L. R. A. 716, 12 So. 512.

Maine. Smith v. Bibber, 82 Me. 34, 17 Am. St. Rep. 464, 19 Atl. 89

Massachusetts. J. C. Brill Co. v. Norton & T. Street R. Co., 189 Mass. 431, 2 L. R. A. (N.S.) 525, 75 N. E. 1090.

Minnesota. Farmers' State Bank v. McGrath, 141 Minn. 281, 170 N. W. 209.

Mississippi. First National Bank v. Strauss, 66 Miss. 479, 14 Am. St. Rep. 579, 6 So. 232.

Missouri. Bacon v. Reichardt, - Mo. - , 208 S. W. 24.

Nebraska. Sackett v. Montgomery, 57 Neb. 424, 73 Am. St. Rep. 522, 77 N. W. 1083; Benton v. Sikyta, 84 Neb. 808, 24 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1057, 122 N. W. 61; Marshall v. Kirschbraun, 100 Neb. 876, L. R. A. 1917E, 788, 161 N. W. 577.

New Mexico. Hill v. Hart, 23 N. M. 226, 167 Pac. 710.

North Carolina. Sykes v. Everett, 167 N. Car. 600, 4 A. L. R. 751, 83 S. E. 585.

Oklahoma. State v. Sapulpa, - Okla. - , 160 Pac. 489.

Utah. Manson v. Harris, - Utah - , 170 Pac. 970.

3 United States. Lamson v. Beard, 94 Fed. 30, 45 L. R. A. 822.

Montana. Helena National Bank v. Telegraph Co., 20 Mont. 370, 64 Am. St. Rep. 628, 51 Pac. 829.

New York. Gerard v. McCormick, 130 N. Y. 261, 14 L. R. A. 234, 29 N. E. 115.

South Carolina. Greenville v. Or-mand, 51 S. Car. 58, 64 Am. St. Rep. 663, 39 L. R. A. 847, 28 S. E. 50.

Utah. Gregg v. Groesbeck, 11 Utah 310, 32 L. R. A. 266, 40 Pac. 202.

Wisconsin. Gulbran son -Dickinson Co. v. Hopkins, - Wis. - , 175 N. W. 93.

4 Brown v. Pettit, 178 Pa. St. 17, 56 Am. St. Rep. 742, 34 L. R. A. 723, 35 Atl. 865.

5Bassick v. Aetna Explosives Co., 246 Fed. 974; Luden v. Enterprise Lumber Co., 146 Ga. 284, L. R. A. 1917C, 485, 91 S. E. 102; J. C. Brill Co. v. Norton & T. Street R. Co., 189 Mass. 431, 2 L. R. A. (N.S.) 525, 75 N. E. 1090; National Park Bank v. Warehouse Co., 116 N. Y. 281, 5LR.A. 673, 22 N. E. 567.

(Alabama. Lockwood v. Tate, 96 Ala. 353, 11 So. 406.

Arizona. Lentz v. Landers, - Ariz. - , 185 Pac. 821.

Colorado. Carlson v. Rensink, - Colo. - , 3 A. L. R. 72, 173 Pac. 542.

Kentucky. Sparr v. Fulton National Bank, 179 Ky. 755, 201 S. W. 310.

Maryland. Griffith v. Shipley, 74 Md. 591, 14 L. R. A. 405, 22 Atl. 1107.

Minnesota. National Citizens' Bank v. Ertz, 83 Minn. 12, 85 Am. St. Rep. 438, 53 L. R. A. 174, 85 N. W. 821.

New York. Goshen National Bank v. Bingham, 118 N. Y. 349, 16 Am. St. Rep. 765, 7 L. R. A. 595, 23 N. E. 180; Canajoharie National Bank v. Diefen-dorf, 123 N. Y. 191, 10 L. R. A. 676, 25 N. E. 402.

South Carolina. Hickson v. Early, 62 S. Car. 42, 39 S. E. 782.

7 Hulett v. Marine Savings Bank, 143 Mich. 219, 4 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1042, 106 N. W. 879.

8 Shirk v. Neible, 156 Tnd. 66, 83 Am. St. Rep. 150, 59 N. E. 281; Galusha v. Sherman, 105 Wis. 263, 47 L. R. A. 417, 81 N. W. 495.

9 De Garmo v. Kay, - Utah - , 173 Pac.' 129.

The maker may show that it was delivered under a contract to bequeath it to a certain beneficiary. Newton v. Newton, 46 Minn. 33, 48 N. W. 450.

10 Colton v. Loan Association, 90 Md. 85, 78 Am. St. Rep. 431, 46 L. R. A. 388, 45 Atl. 23; Gould v. Svendsgaard, 141 Minn. 437, 170 N. W. 595; Curlee v. Ruland, 56 Okla. 329, 155 Pac. 1182.

11 Greever v. Bank, 99 Va. 547, 39 S. E. 159.

12 Maine Mile-Track Association v. Hammond, 127 Mich. 690, 87 N. W. 135; Manson v. Harris, - Utah - , 170 Pac. 970.

13 Tucker v. Fouts, - Fla. - , L. R. A. 1917F, 916, 76 So. 130; Schlesinger v. Lehmaier, 191 N. Y. 69, 123 Am. St. Rep. 591, 16 L. R. A. (N.S.) 626, 83 N. E. 657.

14 Morris v. Banking Co., 109 Ga. 12, 46 L. R. A. 506, 34 S. E. 378; Henne-berry v. Morse, 56 111. 394; Peterson v. Johnson, 22 Wis. 21, 94 Am. Dec. 581.

15 Russ Lumber Co. v. Water Co.. 120 Cal. 521, 65 Am. St. Rep. 186, 52 Pac. 995; Hays v. Plummer, 126 Cal. 107, 77 Am. St. Rep. 153, 58 Pac. 447; Eich-berg v. Board of Education, 165 Ky. 814? 178 S. W. 1075; Sparr v. Fulton National Bank, 179 Ky. 755, 201 S. W. 310; Battery Park Bank v. Lough-ran, 126 N. Car. 814, 36 S. E. 281; Parker v. Horton, - N. Car. - , 96 S. E. 904; Gulbranson-Dickinson Co. v. Hopkins, - Wis. - , 175 N. W. 93.

16 Fairfield County National Bank v. Hammer, 89 Conn. 592, L. R. A. 1918E, 163, 95 Atl. 31; Bank v. Pennsylvania & Kentucky Fire Brick Co., 175 Ky. 192, L. R. A. 1918E, 165, 194 S. W. 110.

17 Baker State Bank v. Grant, 54 Mont. 7, 1G6 Pac. 27.

One who is not a bona fide holder may be protected as against certain defenses on the theory of estoppel.19 A payee, B, who has intrusted C with apparent indicia of title, can not assert his true title to the note as against D, a bona fide holder, to whom C has transferred such note.20 Conduct which does not mislead the holder does not amount to estoppel.21 If C has bought a number of notes from B, with notice of defects which A may interpose, A's payment of one of such notes does not prevent him from setting up such defense as against another note.22