
    WATERS vs. COOPER.
    A man who receives a promissory note which is to be credited on a. claim when paid is not a bona fide holder for value.
    Error to Common Pleas of Venango County. No. 58 October and November Term, 1874.
    . Ezra Cooper agreed to lend Hubbell money, and gave him part cash and his note for the balance; taking a mortgage for the amount upon Hubbell’s property. Hubbell transferred the note to Nelson Waters, who held a judgment against Hub-bell, with the agreement that it should be credited upon the judgment when paid. Cooper claimed that Hubbell had misrepresented . the liens against him, and the value of his property, and refused to pay the note. Suit was brought and the Court charged that if Waters took the note to collect and apply on his judgment, he was not a purchaser for value, and Cooper could set. up any defence against Waters that he could against Hubbell. The jury rendered a verdict for the defendant. Waters then took a writ of error complain* ing of this instruction.
    
      D. C. McCoy, Esq., for plaintiff in error,
    cited inter alia Phelan vs. Moss, 67 Pa. 59; Petrie vs. Clark, 11 S. & R., 377; Walker vs. Geisse, 4 Wh. 252; Depeau vs. Waddington, 6 Wh. 220; Lord vs. Ocean Bank, 20 Pa. 384; Walker vs. Montgomery County Bank, 12 S. & R., 382; Appleton vs. Donaldson, 3 Pa. 381; Struthers vs. Kendall, 41 Pa. 214; Flanagan vs. Mechanics’ Bank, 54 Pa., 398; Clemson vs. Davidson, 5 Binney, 392; Milne vs. Moreton, 6 Binney, 353; Boulden vs. Hebel, 17 S. & R., 312.
    
      Wm. R. Bole, Esq., contra,
    
    cited Kirkpatrick vs. Muirhead, 16 Pa., 117; Ashton’s Appeal, 73 Pa., 153; Irwin vs. Tabb, 17 S. & R., 419; Hartman vs. Dowdel, 1 Rawle, 279; Twelves vs. Williams, 3 Wharton. 485; Trotter vs. Shippen, 2 Pa., 358; Ludwig vs. Highley, 5 Pa., 139.
   The $upreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Common Pleas on October 26, 1874, in the following opinion :

Per Curiam.

The note in this case was not to he credited on the judgment until it was paid. The judgment creditor therefore gave nothing for it, and lost nothing. He was not a purchaser for value, to be protected against a defence to the note, ■of which he had no notice or knowledge. In fact, on the testimony, he was only to collect the note and to apply the proceeds to his judgment. We discover no error in the record, and the

Judgment is therefore affirmed.  