30 BULLETIN 1106, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
consideration and for the purpose of enabling the association to bor- 
row money or obtain credit thereon — then it is settled that the asso- 
ciation could not successfully sue a member on such a note. The 
maker of an accommodation note is known as the accommodation 
maker. He receives nothing for executing the note and signs it to 
enable the one in whose favor it is drawn to obtain money or credit 
from some third party. The fact that a note or other negotiable in- 
strument, no matter what its character, was executed without consid- 
eration can always be shown as between the original parties. It fur- 
nishes the maker with a complete defense as against the original 
payee. 
If a negotiable note, whether accommodation or otherwise, has 
been sold, delivered, or transferred before due to a third person 
in good faith and without notice and for a valuable consideration, 
the note is enforceable against the maker without reference to inter- 
vening equities. This rule is settled. 3 However, where an accom- 
modation note is delivered after it is due, although transferred in 
good faith to a third person and for a valuable consideration, the 
courts are divided as to whether the maker of the note may plead 
intervening equities as a defense against the holder. 
The general rule, without special regard to accommodation notes, 
is that one who takes a note or other negotiable instrument after 
it is due takes it subject to all the equities or defenses that existed 
between the original parties. 4 For instance, if a note is given 
without consideration, this could be shown by the maker when 
sued by one who took the note after it was due. 5 
In the eyes of the law the fact that the note was not paid when 
it was due is notice to the party taking it from the former holder 
that there is some defect in the paper. However, with respect to 
accommodation paper, in view of the fact that it is always given 
without consideration, the courts in a majority of the States have 
refused to allow the maker to plead a want of consideration, al- 
though the note was taken after it was due. 6 But in some juris- 
dictions the maker of an accommodation note may successfully 
plead a want of consideration even as against one who received it 
in good faith and for a valuable consideration from the original 
payee. 7 
Where a note is payable on demand, the general rule as to ordi- 
nary negotiable commercial paper is that one who takes it an un- 
reasonable time after its execution takes it subject to all defenses 
2 National Bank of Commerce v. Sancho Packing Co., 186 Fed. 257. 
4 Otis Elev. Co. v. Ford, 27 Del. 283, S8 Atl. 465. 
5 Hill v. Shield, 81 N. C 250, 31 Am. R. 499. 
6 Xaef v. Potter, 226 111. 628, 80 N. E, 10S4, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1034. 
7 Chester v. Dorr, 41 X. Y. 279; Peale v. Addicks, 174 Pa. 549. 
