And it was further found that the note so made and placed in escrow by plaintiff was the only consideration he paid for the note sued upon.          Now, assuming that the plaintiff acquired title to the note for value by this transaction, which is contrary to the conclusion reached by the learned judge who tried the case, still he took it long after it matured, and therefore subject to any defense which the defendant could have interposed against the firm of Forbes Brothers. (Wood v. Brush , 72 Cal. 224; Coghlin v. May , 17 Cal. 515; Coye v. Palmer , 16 Cal. 159; Folsom v. Bartlett , 2 Cal. 163.)          One of the conclusions of law drawn from the facts showing how the note was indorsed in favor of plaintiff and placed in escrow with plaintiff's note to the firm of Forbes Brothers was to the effect that, as plaintiff never acquired any equitable title to the note by the payment of a valuable consideration, nor a legal title thereto by delivery prior to or at the commencement of this suit, he is not entitled to maintain the suit.