342.  There  is,  however,  some  reason  to  believe  that  the  views  of  that
eminent  jurist  were  subsequently  modified.  In  the  later  editions  of
his  Commentaries  (volume  3,  p.  81,  note  b),  prepared  by  himself,
reference  is  made  to  Stalker  v.  McDonald,  6  Hill  (N.  Y.)  93,  40  Am.
Dec.  389,  in  which  the  principles  asserted  in  Bay  v.  Coddington  were
re-examined  and  maintained  in  an  elaborate  opinion  by  Chancellor
Walworth,  who  took  occasion  to  say  that  the  opinion  in  Swift  v.  Ty-
son was  not  correct  in  declaring  that  a  pre-existing  debt  was,  of  itself,
and  without  other  circumstances,  a  sufficient  consideration  to  entitle


358  NEGOTIATION.  (Part  2

the  bona  fide  holder,  without  notice,  to  recover  on  the  note,  when  it
might  not,  as  between  the  original  parties,  be  valid.  But  Chancellor
Kent  adds:  "Mr.  Justice  Story,  on  Promissory  Notes  (page  215,
note  1),  repeats  and  sustains  the  decision  in  Swift  v.  Tyson,  and  I  am
inclined  to  concur  in  that  decision  as  the  plainer  and  better  doctrine."
Of  course  it  did  not  escape  his  attention  that  the  court  in  Swift  v.
Tyson  declared  the  equities  of  prior  parties  to  be  shut  out  as  well
when  the  note  was  merely  pledged  as  collateral  security  for  a  pre-
existing debt  as  when  transferred  in  payment  or  extinguishment  of
such  debt.
According  to  the  very  general  concurrence  of  judicial  authority  in
this  country  as  well  as  elsewhere,  it  may  be  regarded  as  settled  in  com-
mercial jurisprudence — there  being  no  statutory  regulations  to  the  con-
trary— that  where  negotiable  paper  is  received  in  payment  of  an  ante-
cedent debt,  or  where  it  is  transferred  by  indorsement,  as  collateral
security  for  a  debt  created,  or  a  purchase  made,  at  the  time  of  transfer.
