Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/850

 WOOD V. SEITZIKGBR. 843 �WooD V. Seitzinger.* �(Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania. April 30, 1880.) �Nbgotiablb Note — Teaîtsfek of as Collatekal Becumty pok Pre- EXI8TINO Debt — RiGHTs oP Holdbh — Fradd. — The holder of a nego- tiable note, who bas taken it. as a security for a pre-existing debt, is a holder for value, and is protected against any equities subsisting be- tween the original parties. �Case stated between E. D. Wood & Co., plaintiffs, and Fergus G. Farquhar and others, assignees in bankruptcy of Huddell & Seitzinger, defendants, in which the following facts were agreed upon : That E. D. Wood & Co. were the holders of two promissory notes drawn by Jacob J. S. Seitzinger to the order of Huddell & Seitzinger, and by the latter indorsed — one dated June 23, 1876, for $4,000, at two months, and the other dated June 24, 1876, for $3,000, at two months — eaoh duly protested and notice of dishonor given to the indorsers. �That both of said notes were received by said E. D. Wood & Co. from one B. T. Boyer, under the following circum- stances : E. D. Wood & Co., on June 2, 1876, delivered to said Boyer two of their own notes, for $4,000 each, Boyer agreeing to have the same discounted and to apply the pro- ceeds to the redemption of certain accommodation notes of the same amount given to the Mill Creek Iron Company. Some time afterwards Boyer improperly used for his own purposes one of these notes, and E. D. Wood & Co. thereupon called upon him to return them the other note, which was still in his possession. In consideration, however, upon June 24, 1876, of the delivery by Boyer to said E. D. Wood & Co. of the two notes of Jacob J. S. Seitzinger, now claimed upon, and two other notes of other persons, said E. D. Wood & Co. permitted the said Boyer to retain and use for his own beneflt their (E. D. Wood & Co's.) other notes, aforesaid, which said Boyer did, and E. D. Wood & Co. paid said last-mentioned note at maturity. �*The opinion in this case was inadvertently published on page 285 of this volume, before this report of the case, prepared by Frank i*. Prich. ard, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar, came to hand. ����