The enactment of the Negotiable Instruments Law has raised the question as to the repeal or abrogation of such legislation, with reference to defenses against bona fide holders. It has been urged that such defenses are defects of title, which can not be set up against bona fide holders by the express provisions of Section 57 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, and that such later legislation supersedes earlier legislation, which provides that such instruments shall be void even in the hands of bona fide holders. This view has been taken by some courts.1 The great weight of authority, however, is to the effect that such earlier statutes make such instruments absolutely void; and that, accordingly, there is no "defect in title" in the sense in which the term is used in the Negotiable Instruments Law, but there is an absolute want of legal effect, which gains nothing by a transfer, even to a bona fide holder. Such earlier statutes are not, therefore, repealed by the Negotiable Instruments Law.2 Where such legislation is in force, such defenses as usury,3 that the instrument was given upon a gambling consideration,4 or that it did not show that it was a peddlers note,5 may be made under the Negotiable Instruments Law, even as against a bona fide holder.

4 Pope v. Hanke, 155 111. 617, 28 L. R. A. 568, 40 N. E. 839; Irwin v. Mar-quet, 26 Ind. App. 383, 84 Am. St. Rep. 297, 59 N. E. 38; Snoddy v. Bank, 88 Tenn. 573, 17 Am. St. Rep. 918, 7 L. R. A. 705, 13 S. W. 127; Swinney v. Edwards, 8 Wyom. 54, 80 Am. St. Rep. 916, 55 Pac. 306.

But a statute applying to certain forms of wagers but not to sales without intention of delivering does not make a note given thereunder void in the hands of a bona fide holder. Sond-heim v. Gilbert, 117 Ind. 71, 10 Am. St. Rep. 23, 5 L. R. A. 432, 18 N. E. 687; Crawford v. Spencer, 92 Mo. 498, 1 Am. St Rep. 745, 4 S. W. 713.

Contra, that such a statute is to be construed as not applying to a bona fide holder Higginbotham v. Mc-Gready, 183 Mo. 96, 105 Am. St. Rep. 461, 81 S. W. 883.

5 Georgia. Clarke v. Havard, 111 Ga. 242, 51 L. R. A. 499, 36 S. E. 837.

Massachusetts. Bridge v. Hubbard, 15 Mass. 96, 8 Am. Dec. 86.

New York. Claflin v. Boorum, 122 N. Y. 385, 25 N. E. 360; Sabine v. Paine, 223 N. Y. 401, 119 N. E. 849.

North Carolina. Ward v. Sugg, 113 N. Car. 489, 24 L. R. A. 280, 18 S. E. 717; Faison v. Grandy, 128 N. Car 438, 38 S. E. 897.

West Virginia. Eskridge v. Thomas, 79 W. Va. 322, L. R. A. 1918C, 769, 91 S. E. 7.

6 Streit v. Sanborn, 47 Vt. 702.

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

8 Larson v. Bank, 62 Neb. 303, 87 N. W. 18.

9Nunn v. Bank, 107 Ky. 262, 53 S. W. 665.

10 Wyatt v. Wallace, 67 Ark. 575, 55 S. W. 1105. Under most statutes requiring a note given for a patent right to recite that fact the omission of these words does not affect a bona fide holder. Smith v. Wood, 111 Ga. 221, 36 S. E. 649; Tescher v. Merea, 118 Ind. 586, 21 N. E. 316; Haskell v. Jones, 86 Pa. St. 173.

11 Pritchett v. Ahrens, 26 Ind. App. 56, 84 Am. St. Rep. 274, 69 N. E. 42; Colonial Fur Ranching Co. v. First National Bank, 227 Mass. 12, 116 N. E. 731.