The general principle is that the incapacity of the defendant to make the instrument is a real defense, and consequently that it can be successfully maintained even against a bona fide holder for value. At the common law the note of a married woman was void. The same is true of the note of a person who has been adjudged insane.2 Before such adjudication, however, such a note is valid in the hands of a bona fide holder for value, and perhaps even in the hands of the first taker, if the contract was a fair one and the person dealing with the lunatic had no knowledge of his incapacity.3

1 This is the classification of Professor Ames (2 Ames' Bills and Notes, p. 866), and the one which has been generally adopted by recent writers. See Norton on Bills and Notes, p. 206.

2 Fitzhugh vs. Wilcox, 12 Barb., 236.

3 Mutual Life Ins. vs. Hunt, 79 N. Y., 541. "If no inquisition has been found, the validity of the bill or note or indorsement depends, first, upis found in the statute of 9 Anne, Chap. 14, Sec. 1, which provided that "all notes, where the whole or any part of the consideration is money knowingly lent for gaming, shall be void to all intents and purposes whatever."

The negotiable instruments of an infant are not void, but voidable. It is sometimes said that an infant is bound on a note given in payment for necessary. A more correct statement would probably be that the infant is bound for the reasonable value of the goods for which the note is given. The infant's right to disaffirm his note exists even against a bona fide holder for value.4

"The bill or note of a corporation and its indorsement thereon is unenforceable except as against a bona fide holder, unless made, given or indorsed for the purposes of its incorporation.

"An indorsement of a corporation transfers title; but except when made for the purposes of its incorporation, and as against a bona fide holder, it subjects the corporation to no liability as an indorser." 5