Payment of a pre-existing debt constitutes "value."1 One who takes a note as collateral and subsequently surrenders the note which evidences the principal debt in consideration of such collateral note as payment, is a bona fide holder of the collateral note.2 Under the Negotiable Instruments Law, however, it has been held that a payee of a note, who accepts it in good faith for past indebtedness, is not a holder in due course so that he can enforce such note against the maker if blanks in such note have been filled up contrary to the instructions of such maker.3 Payment of a note by one who is already liable as guarantor thereof, is not such value that the holder may acquire any greater rights than those of the party to whom he gave such guaranty.4 The fact that the only value which was given was a credit upon a pre-existing indebtedness, may be considered in determining whether the holder takes in good faith.5

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

18 Fleshman v. Bibb, 118 Va. 582, 88 S. E. 64.

1 United States. Levy, etc., Co. v. Kauffman, 114 Fed. 170, 52 C. C. A. 126; In re United States Hair Co., 239 Fed. 703, 152 C. C. A. 537.

Arkansas. Tabor v. Bank, 48 Ark. 454, 3 Am. St. Rep. 241, 3 S. W. 805.

Georgia. Lee v. Johnson, 110 Ga. 286, 34 S. E. 568.

Illinois. Foy v. Blackstone, 31 111. 538, 83 Am. Dec. 246.

Indiana. McKnight v. Knisely, 25 Ind. 336, 87 Am. Dec. 364.

Kansas. Benjamin v. Welda State Bank, 98 Kan. 361, 158 Pac. 65.

Kentucky. Frank v. Quast, 86 Ky.

649, 6 S. W. 909.

Massachusetts. Blanchard v. Stevens, 57 Mass. (3 Cush.) 162, 50 Am. Dec.

723; Boston, etc., Co. v. Steuer. 183 Mass. 140, 97 Am. St. Rep. 426. 66 N. E. 646.

New York. Kelso v. Ellis. 224 N. Y. 528. 121 N. E. 364.

Ohio. Carlisle v. Wishart, 11 Ohio 172 [overruling, Riley v. Johnson, 8 Ohio 526].

Tennessee. Tradesmen's National Bank v. Looney, 99 Tenn. 278, 63 Am. St. Rep. 830, 38 L. R. A. 837, 42 S. W. 149.

Texas. Herman v. Gunter, 83 Tex. 66, 29 Am. St. Rep. 632, 18 S. W. 428.

Virginia. Payne v. Zell, 98 Va. 294, 36 S. E. 379.

Contra, Ferriss v. Tavel, 87 Tenn. 386, 3 L. R. A. 414, 11 S. W. 93.

This is the rule under the Negotiable Instruments Law. Kelso v. Ellis, 224 N. Y. 528, 121 N. E. 364.

2 Farmers' & Merchants' State Bank v. Beal, 102 Kan. 481, 170 Pac. 1007.

3 Vander Ploeg v. Van Zuuk, 135 Ia.

350, 13 L. R. A. (N.S.) 490, 112 N. W. 807. The fact that the payee claimed as the holder in due course was pos-siblv the reason for the result of this

9 case.

4 Rockefeller v. Ringle. 77 Kan. 515, 15 L. R. A. (N.S.) 737, 94 Pac. 810.