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.1 Infancy.2 insanity,3and imbecility,4 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.5 This rule is altered by the effect of the Negotiable Instruments Law, in the form in which it has been enacted in some jurisdictions; and intoxication is a defense as against a bona fide holder.6 Coverture may be interposed as a defense against a bona fide holder.7 Want of power of a public corporation may be set up against a bona fide holder,8 at least if such want of power exists generally and does not depend on certain facts which are unknown to such holder.9

Kentucky. Citizens' Bank v. Waddy, 126 Ky. 169, 103 S. W. 249 [sub nomine, Citizens' Bank v. Weakley, 11 L. R. A. (N.S.) 598].

Missouri. Bacon v. Theiss, - Mo. - , 208 S. W. 264.

North Carolina. Rice. v. Jones, 103 N. Car. 226, 14 Am. St. Rep. 801, 9 S. E. 571.

Oklahoma. Critser v. Steeley, - Okla. - , 162 Pac. 795.

South Carolina. Farmers' Bank v. Crawford, 103 S. Car. 340, 88 S E. 13.

Texas. Brannin v. Richardson, 108 Tex. 112, 185 S W. 562.

Utah. Rosenblum v. Gomoll, - Utah - , 173 Pac. 243.

25Shaffer v. Peavey, 161 Wis. 149, 152 N. W. 829.

26 Farmers' Bank v. Crawford, 103 S. Car. 340, 88 S. E. 13.

27 Nelson v. Brown, 140 Mo. 580, 62 Am. St Rep. 755, 41 S. W. 960.

28 Mercantile Trust Co. v. Donk, - Mo. - , 178 S. W. 113.

29 Stevens v. Keegan, 103 Kan. 79, 172 Pac. 1025.

30 Voss v. Chamberlain, 139 Ia. 569, 19 L. R. A. (N.S.) 106, 117 N. W. 269; Manhattan Savings Institution v. Bank, 170 N. Y. 58, 88 Am. St. Rep. 640, 62 N. E. 1079; Cochran v. Fox Checto Bank, 209 Pa. St. 34, 103 Am. St. Rep. 976, 58 Atl. 117.

See also, London Joint Stock Bank v. Simmons [1892]. A. C. 201. Where the negotiable instruments were wrongfully appropriated by the agent of the holder.

1 Murray v. Thompson, 136 Tenn. 118, L. R. A. 1917B, 1172, 188 S. W. 578: Brumley v. Chattanooga Speedway & Motordome Co., 138 Tenn. 534, 198 S. W. 775.

2 Howard v. Simpkins, 70 Ga. 322; Murray v. Thompson, 136 Tenn. 118, L. R. A. 1917B, 1172, 188 S. W. 578. So under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Murray v. Thompson, 136 Tenn. 118, L. R. A. 1917B, 1172, 188 S. W. 578.

Infancy of the principal is not a discharge to the surety. Hodgins v. Northwestern Finance Co., 46 Okla. 95, 148 Pac. 717.

3 American Trust Co. v. Boone, 102 Ga. 202, 66 Am. St. Rep. 167, 40 L. R. A. 250, 29 S. E. 182; McClain v. Davis, 77 Ind. 419.

Contra, Moore v. Hershey, 90 Pa. St. 196.

If A signs a note as accommodation indorser while sane and renews when insane, the payee being ignorant of his insanity, A is liable. Bank v. Sneed, 97 Tenn. 120, 56 Am. St. Rep. 788. 34 L. R. A. 274, 36 S. W. 716.

4 Hosier v. Beard, 54 O. S. 398, 56 Am. St. Rep. 720, 35 L. R. A. 161,