
    No. 10,605
    Orleans
    BALTZ v. FRANCO
    (Apr. 21, 1927. Opinion and Decree.)
    
      (Syllabus by the Court)
    
    1. Louisiana Digest — Bills and Notes — Par. 130.
    Defense of want of consideration is not valid against a holder in .due course.
    Appeal from Civil District Court, Division “A”. Hon -.
    Action by John Baltz against Anthony Franco.
    There was judgment for plaintiff and defendant appealed.
    Judgment affirmed.
    M. C. Scharff, of New Orleans, attorney for plaintiff, appellee.
    Walter G. Wedig, of New Orleans, attorney for defendant, appellant.
   JONES, J.

This is a suit for six hundred eighty-three and 76-100 ($683.76) dollars, the amount of eleven promissory notes with eight per cent interest from respective maturities plus ten iper cent attorney fees.

Defense is want of consideration.

There was judgment for plaintiff and defendant has appealed.

The evidence shows that the plaintiff, an innocent third party, acquired before maturity the note (drawn by the maker and by him endorsed) from the original holder as collateral security for another debt.

Under the circumstances the defense of want of consideration has no merit as plaintiff was a hqlder in due course.

See Act 64 of 1904, Sec. 28.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.  