delivered the opinion of the court.

The instrument ¡hied on in this casé is a note within the description of the first section of the act concerning bonds and notes; (R. C. 1855, p. 319 ;) and by the second section *285is mado assignable, so that the assignee can maintain an action tliereon in his own name against the maker, in like manner as the payee could have done. But it is not a negotiable note within the meaning of the 15th section of the act concerning bills of exchange, for the effective words to give it that character, viz., “for value received, negotiable and payable without defalcation,” are omitted, and therefore it has not the same effect as an inland bill of exchange. This note then stands on the same footing of an ordinary promissory note, transferable, but not negotiable; and the assignment of it to the plaintiff did not defeat any defence which the maker had at the time of the assignment against the payee, for the third section of the act first mentioned declares that “ the obligor or maker shall be allowed every just set-off or other defence against the assignee and the assignor existing at the time of or before notice of the assignment, unless it shall be expressed in the bond or note that the same is for value received, negotiable and payable without defalcation and the fifth section provides that the assignee shall not obtain any greater title to, or interest in, any bond or note than the person had from whom he acquired it.

It will be observed that there is a difference in the provisions of the revised acts of 1845 and 1855 on the same subject, and that the third section of the act of 1855 is a substitute for the third and fourth sections of the .act of 1845. By the third section of the old law, a set-off against the assignor before the assignment was not allowed if it was expressed in the note or bond that the sum therein specified should be paid without defalcation or discount; but a note or bond under the present statute must contain other words, “ for value received, negotiable and payable without defalcation,” to prevent the maker from pleading a set-off against the assignor existing at the time or before notice of the-assignment.

The payment in this case was made before the note was assigned, and the right to set up that defence was not im*286paired by the assignment of the plaintiff, for he acquired no greater interest in the note than the person had from whom he acquired it, and he took it subject to all the defences which the maker had against the payee at the time of the assignment. The judgment will be affirmed,