Since, as we have seen, the acceptor becomes the principal debtor, the presumption is that the acceptor had funds of the drawer,1 and if the accepted bill be protested for non-payment the drawer may recover from the acceptor without showing payment of the bill,2 or without showing title under the payee;3 yet other courts hold that the drawer must show, in order to recover from the acceptor, that he was compelled to pay the bill on account of the acceptor's default.4 If the acceptor, however, was an accommodation acceptor, in order to recover from him the drawer must show that he put the acceptor in funds.5 And an accommodation acceptor is entitled in equity to be subrogated to the position of the holder of the bill.6 As we have said, the fact that the acceptor is an accommodation acceptor does not vary his responsibility to the holder,7 whether the holder knew he was an accommodation acceptor or not,8 and whether the holder took by indorsement before9 or after acceptance.10 The fraudulent diversion of the bill itself is no defense in favor of the acceptor as against a bona fide holder whether he took the bill before or after acceptance;11 nor is a diversion of the proceeds of goods against which the draft was drawn;12 but it would be a defense in favor of the accommodation drawer as against the acceptor who had diverted the proceeds of the shipment which he had agreed to apply upon the bill.13 The acceptor, by his acceptance, obtains a lien upon the funds of the drawer in his hands.14 He can charge a commission for accepting only by agreement or by a customary mode of dealing.15 The liability of the acceptor is for the face of the bill and interest,16 and, if protested, for the notarial fees;17 but he is not liable for damages unless made so liable by statute. The promise to accept a bill to be drawn would cover as damages for a breach the whole cost and expenses, including re-exchange and interest.18 An order payable in stocks accepted makes the acceptor liable, not for the amount of money named, but for the value of the stocks at the date they should have been delivered.19 The acceptor supra protest recovers from the drawer or the party for whom he accepts protest fees as part of the bill.

13 Bank of Commerce v. Union Bank, 3 N. Y. 230; Ellis v. Ohio Life Ins. Co., 1 Handy, 119.

14 Goddard v. Merchants' Bank, 4 N. Y. 147;

15 See Sec. 154, ante.

1 See note 1 to last- section.

2 Kingman v. Hotaling, 25 Wend. 423. Contra, Quinn v. Hanley, 5 Bradw. 51; Pilkington v. Woods, 10 Ind. 432, semble.

3Cooper v. Jones, 79 Ga. 379; Kingman v. Hotaling, 25 Wend. 423; Zebiey v Voisin, 7 Pa. 527; Coursin v. Leadlie, 31 Pa. 506 (non-negotiable order). But of course if it appear that it was an accommodation acceptance the drawer must show that he put the drawee in funds. Parker v. Lewis, 39 Tex. 394

4 See last two cases in note 2, supra.

5 Parker v. Lewis, 39 Tex. 394 6 Toronto Bank v. Hunter, 4 Bosw. 646.

7 See notes 14 and 15, Sec. 226. An acceptance is good after maturity (Stockwell v. Bramble, 3 Ind. 428), and it is good after protest.

8 See notes 14 and 15, Sec. 226, and First Nat Bank v. Schuyler, 39 N. Y. Super. Ct. 440. The holder is under no obligation to realize on the drawer's securities. Fowler v. Gate City Nat Bank, 88 Ga. 29. Contra, Bradford v. Hubbard, 8 Pick. 155.

9 Credit Co. v. Howe Machine Co., 54 Conn. 357; Arpin v. Owens, 140 Mass. 144; Huertematte v. Morris, 101 N. Y. 63.

10 An indorsee after acceptance takes the acceptance as the promissory note of the acceptor Mechanics' Bank v. Livingston, 33 Barb. 458

11 Fort Dearborn Nat Bank v.

Carter, Rice & Co., 152 Mass. 34; Mechanics' Bank v. Livingston, 33 Barb. 458; Louisville Bank v. El-lery, 34 Barb. 630; Iselin v. Chemical Nat. Bank, 40 N. Y. Supp. 388. And see Gray v. Kentucky Bank, 29 Pa. 365, as to a diversion of proceeds of the draft. But indorsee before acceptance cannot enforce an ultra vires acceptance of a corporation, since he gave credit to drawer or indorser. Farmers' Bank v. Empire Stone Co., 5 Bosw. 275.

12 Brander v. Phillips, 16 Pet 121.

13 Brander v. Phillips, 16 Pet. 121. Accommodation indorsers may recover against prior accommodation acceptor, though the proceeds of the bill were applied to the payment of a claim upon which one of the accommodation indorsers was an indorser. Gillespie v. Campbell, 39 Fed. R, 724 See Leslie v. Bas-sett, 59 N. Y. Super. Ct 403.