This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1891 Excerpt: ...Rose, ante; Welch v. Sage, ante; Seybel v. National Currency Bk., ante. If a party pays full value for a note, in the usual course of business before maturity, that alone is prima facie proof of his good faith. Richmond v-Diefendorf, ante; Dalrymple v. Hillenbrand, ante; Cowing n. Altman, ante. But when he pays only half value, or substantially less than its face value, the transaction implies some defect, impeaches the responsibility or integrity of the maker, or the genuineness of the papers itself, and requires the holder to explain what occasions the large disparity between the nominal value and the actual price. Id. Huff v. Wagner, 63 Barb. 215,235. A holder of a negotiable note, where the maker shows that it was obtained from him by fraud or duress, is in no better position than the payee unless, within the law merchant, he is a bona fide holder, and he does not establish that character for himself by merely producing the note and proving that he paid one-half its face value for it. Vosburgh v. Diefendorf, 119 N. Y. 357. Antecedent debt.--The transfer of a note as collateral security for the payment of a pre-existing debt, is not taking it in the ordinary course of trade, and for a valuable consideration, as between the creditor and an accommodation indorser. Wardell v. Howell, 9 Wend. 170. The term "by the usual course of trade" is meant, not that the holder shall receive the bills and notes thus obtained as securities for antecedent debts, but that he shall take them in his business, and as payment for a debt contracted at the time. Payne v. Cutler, 13 Id. 605. A draft fraudulently diverted from the object for which it was made and accepted, can be enforced against the accommodation accepter only by a bona fide holder for value. Moore v-Ry...