#### F. R Dennis, Appellee, v. Charles R. Jones, Appellant.

(Not to he reported in full.)

Appeal from the City Court of Mattoon; the Hon. John McNutt, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1915.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed October 13, 1915.

Statement of the Case.

Action by F. B. Dennis, plaintiff, against Charles B. Jones, Dudley G. Hayes, and George Hoffman, defendants, on a joint promissory note of the defendants. From a judgment against him, the other defendants not having been served, Charles B. Jones appeals.

The plaintiff brought suit as indorsee of the payee for accrued interest. After the introduction of the note in evidence by plaintiff, appellant called plaintiff as a witness. He testified that he did not know the makers but that he bought the note after his bankers had investigated them; that he did not ask the payee what it was given for but that the payee told him it was given for some of his mausoleum interests; that he paid $1,500 in cash and transferred $3,000 of stock at 50 cents on the dollar for the note on July 16, 1913. *104One of the joint makers of the note testified that in a conversation with plaintiff a few weeks before the trial, plaintiff told him that he held the note as collateral security for a loan. Appellant introduced in evidence a contract between the payee and the appellant under which the payee agreed to procure certain mausoleum rights for a corporation to be organized, and which was the consideration for the note sued upon, and other notes.

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Pleading, § 432 * —when data of note need not be proved as alleged. Where, in an action for interest on. a promissory note, the declaration correctly alleged the date on which such interest accrued, held that the date of the note, laid under a videlicet, need not be proved as alleged.

2. Bills and notes, § 56*—when failure to perform contract does not constitute failure of consideration for note. Failure of the payee of a note to perform a contract, the promise to perform which was alleged by one of the makers to have been the consideration for which the note was made, held not a defense to an action thereon, against a maker, by a holder in good faith before maturity, where it was not alleged that the contract had been canceled'or attempted to be canceled.

3. Bills and notes, § 448*—when evidence sufficient to show that plaintiff is an indorsee in good faith before maturity. Evidence introduced by a defendant in an action on a promissory note, held to show that the plaintiff was an indorsee in good faith before maturity.

4. Pledges, § 10*—when indorsee holding note on collateral security not affected by defenses. In an action by an indorsee before *105maturity of a negotiable promissory note against a maker thereof held that though the plaintiff held the note merely as collateral security for a loan made to the payee, that would not be a defense unless the plaintiff knew of or had notice of such facts as would put a reasonably prudent man on inquiry concerning defenses to the note.

*104Andrews & Real and Archibald Cattell, for appellants.

John B. King, Leo G. Hana and Vause, Hughes & Kiger, for appellee.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Justice Thompson

delivered the opinion of the court.

*105—