
    William C. Shirley v. Enoch Howard, and Same v. Corydon Weed et al.
    
    Assignee before maturity—subject to what defenses. It is no defense to an action upon a promissory note, by the assignee against the maker, that the consideration of the note, between the maker and the payee, was a wager on the result of the presidential election, where the assignee received the note in good faith, for a valuable consideration, before maturity.
    Appeals from the Circuit Court of Sangamon county; the Hon. Benjamin S. Edwards, Judge, presiding.
    The opinion gives a sufficient statement of these cases.
    Messrs. Robinson, Knapp & Shutt, for the appellant.
    Messrs. Hay, Greene & Littler, for the appellees.
   Mr. Justice Lawrence

delivered the opinion of the Court:

Both of these cases were actions upon promissory notes, brought by the endorsee against the maker. The only defense was, that the consideration of the notes was a wager on the last presidential election. It was held in Adams v. Wooldridge, 3 Scam. 255, that this was not a good defense against an assignee, talcing the note in good faith, for a valuable consideration, before maturity. We see no reason for disregarding that authority.

Judgment affirmed.  