As assignee of the Pacific National Bank the plaintiff commenced three separate actions against three different- defendants on three different notes. The defendants answered and by consent of the parties the actions were consolidated for trial. The trial court made findings in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendants have appealed. The pleadings were quite full and the findings are long, full and complete. The defendants' claim that several of the findings in part were not sustained by the evidence. The general facts which involved the parties in this litigation are stated in detail in the decision on a former appeal, Robb v. Cardoza, 110 Cal. App. 116 [ 293 Pac. 851 ], and need not be repeated.

The defendants contend (1) the taking by a creditor from his debtor of a promissory note of a third party given to the debtor as payee is not a taking for value and does not create a bona fide holder for value in due course where such note is merely taken as added collateral, where no credit is given upon the indebtedness prior to some payment by said third party, and where said note is infirm as between such third party and said payee, and where no payment is ever made or credit given; (2) in other words, a pre-existing indebtedness is usually a sufficient consideration to constitute a pledge-holder a bona fide holder, and it is not so where third party rights exist to he protected by equity; (3) where third party rights are concerned, no one party is allowed to lose while another makes a profit, but justice is done between them all. Such title as the bank has it holds by an estoppel; and the doctrine of estoppel discountenances and denies any and all profit at the expense of innocent third parties; and (4) in no view was the bank a bona fide purchaser.

For the sake of brevity we answer the last point first. The bank claimed and the trial court found that the bank held the note sued upon as collateral to secure the payment of another note theretofore delivered to the bank. No question of being a purchaser was involved.

In support of points 1 and 2, the defendants cite and rely on Bank of Italy v. Welbilt Auto Body Co., 101 Cal. App. 526 [ 281 Pac. 1060 ] ; Pacific Nat. Bank v. Corona Nat. Bank, 113 Cal. App. 366 [ 298 Pac. 144 ] ; Pacific Acceptance Corp. v. Goodman, 72 Cal. App. 143 [ 236 Pac. 964 ] ; Oppenheimer v. Radke & Co., 20 Cal. App. 518 [ 129 Pac. 798 ] ; Sargent v. Sturm, 23 Cal. 359 [ 83 Am. Dec. 118 ] ; Peoples F. & T. Co. v. Matthews F. Co., 104 Cal. App. 630 [ 286 Pac. 710 ] ; Civ. Code, sec. 3135. No one of the authorities is in point. On the former appeal (Robb v. Cardoza, 110 Cal. App. 116 ), at page 122 [ 193 Pac. 851 , 853]), the court said: “The rule is well settled that the indorsee of a promissory note as security for a pre-existing debt is a holder for value in the usual course of business (Payne v. Bensley, 8 Cal. 260 [ 68 Am. Dec. 318 ] ; Smitton v. McCullough, 182 Cal. 530 [ 189 Pac. 686 ] ; Hunt v. Glassell, 47 Cal. App. 774 [191 Pac. 373] ; Griswold v. Morrison, 53 Cal. App. 93 [ 200 Pac. 62 ] ; People’s State Bank v. Penello, 59 Cal. App. 174 [ 210 Pac. 432 ] ; Williams v. Walker, 66 Cal. App. 672 [ 226 Pac. 939 ], and, as held in Goodale v. Thorn, 199 Cal. 307 [ 249 Pac. 11 ], and Blochmann Commercial etc. Bank v. Moretti, 177 Cal. 256 [ 170 Pac. 419 ]). ...” An examination of the authorities there cited will disclose that every single case is in point. See, also, West Rutland Trust Co. v. Houston, 104 Vt. 204 [ 158 Atl. 69 ], 80 A. L. R. 664, and exhaustive note attached; see, also, 8 C. J. 488, and exhaustive note.

In support of their third point the defendants cite and rely on Ramsey v. Chilson, 57 Cal. App. 785 [ 208 Pac. 319 ], Little v. Union Oil Co., 73 Cal. App. 612 [ 238 Pac. 1066 ], Evans v. Marsh & Co., Inc., 116 Cal. App. 441 [ 2 Pac. (2d) 882 ] ; Martin v. Hollins, 118 Cal. App. 561 [ 5 Pac. (2d) 899 ], and Civ. Code, sec. 3135. No one of the authorities is in point. The rights of the plaintiff are defined by section 3138 of the Civil Code.

At the time that the trial court was settling the findings the defendants requested the trial court to make certain additions to its findings, but it refused to do so. The findings so requested were as follows:

The defendants earnestly rely on cases which involved an antecedent debt that had been discharged in bankruptcy, an antecedent debt that was barred by the statute of limitations, and an antecedent debt that had become worthless. Such facts are not involved in this litigation and we shall reserve a discussion of the law pertinent to such facts when the occasion arises.

We find no error in the re-sord. The judgment is affirmed.

Nourse, P. J., and Spence, J., concurred.

A petition by appellants to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on January 19, 1933.