In order to be a bona fide holder, the holder must take for value. If the holder does not give value for the note he is not a bona fide holder.1 "Value" means valuable consideration.2 A receiver,3 as the receiver of an insolvent bank,4 or an assignee for the benefit of creditors,5 parts with nothing of value and is not a holder for value. One who takes for collection is the agent of the indorser and is not a holder for value.6 If the indorser of such instrument has checked out the amount of such deposit, the indorsee is a holder for value, even if he originally took for collection.7 Even if the amount of the instrument is placed to the credit of the indorser who has the right to check on such account, the fact that the indorsee reserves the right to charge back the amount of the instrument if it is not paid, renders the indorsee an agent for collection and not a holder for value.8The fact, however, that the indorser had an account which was greater than the amount of the instrument thus deposited to his credit is not of itself conclusive of the fact that the indorsee was an agent for collection and not a holder for value.9

If the holder has obtained restitution from his indorser, he can not thereafter claim as a bona fide holder.10

1 Security State Bank v. Clarke, 99 Kan. 18, 160 Pac. 1149; Smith v. Bayer, 46 Or. 143, 114 Am. St. Rep. 858, 79 Pac. 497.

A bank which takes over the assets and assumes the liabilities of another bank is held not to purchase the notes of such other bank unconditionally for value; and accordingly the purchasing bank is not regarded as a holder in due course. Bank v. Jordan (Ala.), 75 So. 930. See, Donatio Mortis Causa of Negotiable Paper, by Francis R. Jones, 6 Harvard Law Review, 36.

2 Section 190 of the Negotiable Instruments Law.

See also, Miller v. Marks, 46 Utah 267, 148 Pac. 412.

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

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

5 Roberta v. Hall, 37 Conn. 205, 9 Am. Rep. 308.

6 People's State Bank v. Miller, 185 Mich. 565, 152 N. W. 257; Worth Co. v. International Sugar Feed No. 2 Co., 172 N. Car. 335, 90 S. E. 295; Smith v. Bayer, 46 Or. 143, 114 Am. St. Rep. 858, 79 Pac 497.

7 Standard Trust Co. v. Commercial National Bank, 240 Fed. 303; Standard Trust Co. v. Commercial National Bank, 166 N. Car. 112, 81 S. E. 1074.

See Sec. 2370.

8 Worth Co. v. International Sugar Feed No. 2 Co., 172 N. Car. 335, 90 S. E. 205.

9 Worth Co. v. International Sugar Feed No. 2 Co., 172 N. Car. 335, 90 S. E. 295.

10 First National Bank v. Lyons Ex-change Bank, 100 Kan. 194, 164 Pac. 137.

The holder need not pay the full face of the instrument to be a holder for value,11 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.12 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.13 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.14 The latter rule has been adopted by the Negotiable Instruments Law.15

Past services which created no legal liability do not amount to value for the transfer of a negotiable instrument.16Love and affection is said to be such a value that the holder may enforce a note which was made on Sunday, but which was dated on a secular day, if the holder did not know of such defect when he took such note.17 One to whom a note has been transferred and who has paid a part of the value therefor, is a holder in due course, although another person has paid a part of the value therefor, and although such other person has an equal interest in such negotiable instrument.18

11 United States. Goodman v. Sim-onds, 61 U. S. (-20 How.) 343, 15 L. ed. 934.

Alabama. Bernheimer v. Gray, - Ala. - , 78 So. 840.

Arizona. Phoenix Safety Investment Co. v. Michaels, - Ariz. - , 176 Pac. 587.

Kentucky. Farmers' Bank v. First National Bank, 164 Ky. 548, 175 S. W. 1019.

Massachusetts. Wheeler v. Guild, 37 Mass. (20 Pick.) 545, 32 Am. Dec. 231.

Ohio. Kitchen v. Loudenback, 48 O. S. 177, 29 Am. St. Rep. 540, 26 N. E. 979 ($367.50 paid for a note for $450).

Tennessee. 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.).

Washington. McNamara v. Jose, 28 Wash. 461, 68 Pac. 903 (discounted for one-half its face value); Moore v. Burling, 93 Wash. 217, 160 Pac. 420.

12 Alabama. Bernheimer v. Gray, - Ala. - , 78 So. 840 (such discount is not usury).

Arizona. Phoenix Safety Investment Co. v. Michaels, - Ariz. - , 176 Pac. 587.

Maryland. Williams v. Huntington, 68 Md. 590, 6 Am. St. Rep. 477, 13 Atl. 336.

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

Washington. Moore v. Burling, 93 Wash. 217, 160 Pac. 420.

13 Wade v. Ry., 149 U. S. 327, 37 L. ed. 755; Murphy v. Lucas, 58 Ind. 360: Oldham v. Turner, 42 Ky. (3 B. Mon.) 67; Kitchen v. Loudenback, 48 O. S. 177. 29 Am. St. Rep. 540, 26 N. E. 979.

14 Richards v. Monroe, 85 Ia. 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, 66 Tenn. (7 Baxt.) 422; Petty v. Hannum, 21 Tenn. (2 Humph.) 102, 36 Am. Dec. 303.

15 Section 54 of the Negotiable Instruments Law.

See also, In re Continental Engine Co., 234 Fed. 58.

16Gooch v. Gooch, 178 Ia. 902, L. R A. 1917C, 582, 160 N. W. 333.