#### La Salle Extension University, Appellee, v. Hamilton College of Law, Appellant.

Gen. No. 21,369.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Hosea W. Weixs, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the Miarch term, 1915.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed November 15, 1916.

Certiorari denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).

Statement of the Case.

Action by La Salle Extension University, plaintiff, against the Hamilton College of Law, defendant, in the Municipal Court of Chicago, to recover on four promis*89sory notes. To reverse a judgment for plaintiff for $2,099.63, defendant appeals.

It appeared that defendant and a corporation called the Cree Publishing Company made a contract volving the performance to defendant of certain contractual duties in reference to a quantity of books, in consideration of which defendant gave to it certain notes. In order to be able to make the contract with defendant, the Cree Company arranged with parties named De Bower and Chapline to surrender, for a consideration, their exclusive rights of sale of the books in a certain territory, for which they were to receive half the profits of the contract with defendant. The maturity of the notes was arranged so that they became due successively, and defendant had the privilege of paying half of a note and renewing the balance for four months. The four original notes were indorsed by the Cree Company without recourse and delivered to De Bower and Chapline, who delivered them to plaintiff, the transaction being shortly after the date of the contract. De Bower and Chapline, who were president and vice president of plaintiff corporation, knew of the contract. Later two of the notes were presented by plaintiff to defendant, which paid part of one note, and gave two renewal notes for the balance. Before suit was brought the Cree Company went into bankruptcy, but not until nearly a year after the delivery of the notes to De Bower and Chapline. Defendant gave the Cree Company $18,000 in notes and paid about $6,200 on them. The notes were complete and regular on their face, and acquired in good faith, in the regular course of business and for a consideration.

The contract provided for the delivery of 1,000 sets of the books to defendant, of which the Cree Company had delivered about 343 sets before bankruptcy.

Rankin, Howard & Donnelly, for appellant.

*90Newman, Poppenhusen & Stern, for appellee; Edward R. Johnston, of counsel.

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Bills and notes, § 50 * —when consideration sufficient. In an action to recover on promissory notes, the defense of no consideration is not available to defendant where the notes contain a recital that they were given “in consideration of the permission to go ahead and make the contract with the Hamilton College of Law,” it also appearing that the notes were given in pursuance of a contract for the sale of certain books, which contract could not be made until parties having the exclusive agency for the sale of the books in a certain territory had released their rights, which was the permission referred to.

2. Bills and notes, § 259*—when failure of consideration no defense against hona fide holder. An indorsement in the usual course of business of notes regular on their face passes a good title to the indorsee although the notes were given in performance of an executory contract imposing certain duties on the payee in favor of the maker, of which contract the indorsee has notice, where at the time of the indorsement there has been no default in the performance of the contract, although later there is default, since in such case an indorsee is not bound to keep watch as to the performance of the contract.

3. Bills and notes, § 479*—when alteration cannot he considered on appeal. In an action to recover on nates, the maker is estopped to object that the notes sued on have been materially altered after execution and delivery by adding the words and figures “with interest at 6%,” where the affidavit of merits admitted the making and signing of such notes, and where the objection was not made in the trial court.

*

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

Mr. Justice Taylor

delivered the opinion of the court.