Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/851

 844 rStHSSAL BBPORTEB. �That the notes claimed upon were procured by saîd Boycr from Seitzinger upon June 24, 1876, by untrue representa- tions made by Boyer to Seitzinger that E. D. Wood & Co. needed accommodation. That neither Seitzinger nor HuddeH & Seitzinger received any consideration therefor. ThatE. D. Wood & Co. had no knowledge or notice of this, and suppoaed the notes represented a debt due by the maker to Boyer. �That if the court should be of opinion that the plaintiffs are entitled to recoTer, judgment is to be entered for the plain- . tiffs for $351.49, being 5 per cent, on the amount of the said two notes, with interest, viz., $7,029.84, the said 5 per cent, being the dividend theretofore declared upon the allowed claims against the estate of Huddell & Seitzinger, bankrupts; otherwise, judgment for defendants. Both parties reserved the right to take a writ of error to the judgment. �Thomas Hart, Jr., for plaintiffs. �E. O. Platt and Samuel Dickson, for defendants. �Pkk Curiam. Is the holder of a negotiable note, who bas takcn it as a security for a pre-existing debt, a holder for value, and so protected against any equities subsiating between the original parties to it? This is the only question presented by this case. If the rule established in Pennsylyania by the decisions of her highest court is to be foUowed, it must b« answered in the negative. But these decisions are only per- suasive, as may be said aîso of the recent decision in thia court by a late eminent judge, conformably to the state rule. The question involved is not one of local law, but of general commercial jurisprudence; henof? the duty of the court is imperative to follow the guidance of general judicial opinion concerning it. As to the preponderating weight of this opin- ion there is scarcely ground for doubt. �In perhaps a majority of the United States the law is eettled that the taking of a note as collateral security for a pre-existing debt is a holding for value. So it is held in Eng- land. See 2 C. M. & E. 180; Percival v. Frampton and Poi- rier V. Morris, 2 E. & B. 89. It is stated to b« the better doctrine in 3 Kent's Com. *81 ; in Story on Prom. Notes, § 195 ; in 1 Parsons' Prom. Notes, 218; and in Byles on Bills, by ����