QJorupU ICam ^rlynnl ICibtatg Cornell University Library KF 957.Z95E14 A treatise on commercial paper and the N 3 1924 018 849 848 Cornell University Library The original of tiiis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924018849848 A TREATISE Commercial Paper AND THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS LAW INCLUDING THE Law Relating to Promissory Notks, Bills of Exchange, Checks^ Municipal Bonds, and other Negotiable and Nonnego- TiABLE Instruments, commonly classed as Commercial Paper, with an Appendix containing the Ne- gotiable Instruments Law and the English Bills of Exchange Act. J A M E S 'W. E^ TON LATE LECTURER ON THE LAW OF CONTRACTS AND NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS IN THE aAaNY LAW- SCHOOL, AND ON EVIDENCE IN THE BOSTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL. FORMER EDIT^ OF THE AMERICAN BANKRUPTCY REPORTS, AND AUTHOR OF EATON ON EQUITY AND OF THE THIRD EDITION OF COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY. FRANK B. GILBERT AUTHOR OF GILBERT ON DOMESTIC RELATIONS, ETC. ALBANY, N. Y. MATTHEW BENDER 1903 "B7^3^a Copyright, 1903 By MATTHEW BENDER. f. B. LYON COMPANY PRINTERS AND BINDERS ALBANY, N. Y. PREFACE The Negotiable Instruments Law is the result of a con- certed effort on the part of several State Legislatures to harmonize and make uniform the rules and principles governing the use of negotiable instruments. It is now in force in nineteen States and the District of Columbia and the Territory of Arizona, and is at present a control- ling element in the commercial transactions of nearly forty millions of people in this country. It has been confidently asserted that it will soon become the law in all the States of the Union. The law has settled many disputed points and disposed of much confusion and conflict of authori- ties. It has, in many States, expressly overruled prevail- ing doctrines, and has modified or eliminated rules often enunciated by leading text-writers and the courts. In view of this fact it was planned to make this work a treatise on the law of commercial paper in all its various aspects, but especially with a view of considering and treating the rules and principles relating thereto in con- nection with the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Law. In consummation of this plan we have made the sections of this law a part of the text, and have exten- sively elaborated thereon, and carefully and exhaustively discussed correlative and supplemental principles and doc- trines. But we have not confined our research to the authorities found in the reports of the States which have adopted the act. We have attempted to cover the entire field of the law of commercial paper, citing cases from every jurisdiction and using the statutes in their proper [iii] iv Peeface. connection. It has been our aim to make this work of general use to the working lawyer and the student. Mr. James W. Eaton, who first conceived the plan of writing this book, died before its completion. His death was a grievous personal loss to his coworker, independ- ent of its effect upon this book. It is not fitting in this place to eulogize him ; the friends that he made and the work that he did during his lifetime speak sufficiently of his greatness of heart and mind. This book would have been a better one had Mr. Eaton lived to see its comple- tion. I have attempted to carry out his plan, and have had constantly in view his main purpose, through esteem for hini and in honor of his memory. FRANK B. GILBERT. Albany, N. Y., February 14, 1903. TABLE OF CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. PAGE. NATURE ANB ORIGIN OF COMMERCIAL PAPER 1-41 A. In General. § 1. Commercial paper defined 2 § 2. Law merchant ; when to control 2 B. Bills op Exchange. § 3. Definition of bills of exchange 4 § 4. Origin of bills of exchange 5 a. Where originated 5 b. Law merchant; custom of merchants 6 c. Records and chronicles showing use of bills of exchange 7 d. Statutes and ordinances relating to bills of exchange 8 e. Judicial decisions involving bills of exchange 8 § 5. Assignability of bills of exchange. 10 I 6. Inland and foreign bills of exchange 11 a. Definitions 11 b. Distinction between foreign and inland bills 13 c. Determination of question as to what constitutes a foreign bill. 13 § 7. Parties to bill of exchange 14 I 8. Bills in a set 16 a. When made 16 b. Form of parts 16 C. Peomissoet Notes. % 9. Definition 17 § 10. Negotiability 18 § 11. Development and early use 18 a. Origin and development 18 b. Statute of 3 & 4 AnBe, chap. 9 20 § 12. Parties to a promissory note 22 D. Otheb Foems of Commbecial Papee. § 13. Bank notes; definition and use 23 § 14. Due bills and I O U's 25 § 15. Certificates of deposit 27 [V] vi Table of Contents. PAGE. § 16. Checks 28 a. Definition 28 b. Distinction between checks and bills of exchange 30 § 17. Bills of lading 3» a. Definition 33 b. Negotiability 33 § 18. Letters of credit 35 a. Definition and nature 35 b. Classification 35 c. Eflfeet of letters of credit 36 § 19. Bonds and coupons 37 § 20. Certificates of stock 38 CHAPTER II. PARTIES AND THEIR CAPACITY 42-160 A. Incapacity oe Pakties. § 21. General statement 42 a. Early restriction on parties 42 b. Power to contract 42 § 22. Infants 43 a. Validity of contracts 43 b. Obligation of persons dealing with infants 45 e. Contracts for necessaries 46 d. Commercial paper of infants 47 e. Note or bill for necessaries 48 f . Eights of infant as payee and indorsee 50 g. Ratification after infant becomes of age 51 h. What constitutes ratification 52 § 23. Persons of unsound mind 55 a. In general 55 b. Presumption of sanity ; notice 56 c. Contracts for necessaries 57 d. Bills and notes by persons of unsound mind 58 e. Indorsement by insane person; rights of innocent holder 59 § 24. Intoxicated persons 61 a. Contracts generally 61 b. Promissory notes and bills of exchange 61 § 25. Married women 62 a. Under the common law 62 b. Enabling statutes 65 c. Bills and notes of married women generally 66 d. Indorsement by married women 67 e. Reduction into possession 68 f . Joint notes of husband and wife 69 § 26. Alien enemies , 70 Table of Contents. vii B. Persons Acting in Fiduciary Capacity. page. § 27. Executors and administrators 71 a. In general 71 h. Bills and notes by executors and administrators 72 0. Eights of executors and administrators as to bills and notes of decedents 74 d. Indorsement by executor or administrator 75 e. Presentment for payment, notices, etc 76 f. Acts of one of two or more executors 77 g. Note due from administrator or executor 78 § 28. Trustees, guardians, committees, etc 79 C. Persons Acting in Representative Capacity. § 29. Agents 80 a. In general 80 b. Authority to make notes and accept bills 81 c. Liability of person signing as agent 82 ( 1 ) Statutory provision 82 ( 2 ) Liability in general 83 (3) How representative capacity to be indicated 86 (4) Disclosure of name of principal in body of instrument... 89 (5) Parol evidence admissible to show intent 93 d. Signature by procuration; effect of 98 e. Liability of agent indorsing negotiable paper, or drawing bill of exchange 99 f. Negotiable instruments by public agents 102 § 30. Partners 104 a. In general ; what constitutes a partnership 104 b. Authority of one partner to execute commercial paper in name of firm 107 c. Presumption in favor of validity of partnership paper executed by one partner 109 d. Commercial paper of trading and nontrading partnerships... 112 e. Eights of bona fide holder 115 f. Signing firm name for accommodation or security 118 g. Negotiable paper in payment of individual debts of partner. . 123 h. Partnership paper in name of individual member 124 i. Commercial paper given by partner for use of firm 126 j. Liability of dormant partner 128 k. Effect of dissolution 129 1. Notice of dishonor ; presentment 132 § 31. Corporations 132 a. Power to execute commercial paper 132 b. Defense of ultra vires I35 c. Power to make or Indorse for accommodation 136 d. Presumption in favor of validity of corporation paper 137 e. Power of officers to issue commercial paper 138 f. Power of officers to transfer commercial paper I43 g. Form of notes and bills by corporations; form of indorsement. 145 viii Table of Contents. PAGE. i 32. Municipal corporations 147 a. Power to contract 147 b. Power to borrow money 148 c. Power to issue negotiable instruments 152 d. Power of oflBcers to issue negotiable instruments 157 CHAPTER III. FORM AND REQUISITES 161-270 § 33. Statutory provision as to form 161 ^ 34. Instrument must be in writing; signature 162 a. Must be in writing 162 b. Signature 162 c. Ratification of unauthorized signature 166 I 35. Promise or order to pay 168 a. In general 168 b. Promise to pay 169 c. Order to pay 174 f 36. Promise or order to pay must be unconditional 175 a. In general 175 b. Examples of conditional promises 177 c. When order or promise is unconditional; statutory provision. . 182 d. Order or promise to pay out of a particular fund 186 I 37. Must be payable in money 188 a. In general 188 b. Definitions ; money ; currency ; legal tender 190 e. Instruments payable in current funds or currency 191 d. Payable in foreign money 194 e. Payment in money optional 195 f. Act in addition to payment of money 196 5 38. Certainty as to sum 198 a. In general 198 b. What constitutes certainty as to sum; statutory provision .... 199 c. Payment of interest 199 d. Payment in installments 201 e. Provision for exchange 202 f. Costs of collection and attorney's fees 204 S 39. Time of payment 208 a. In general 208 b. Payment in installments 209 c. Payable on demand; statutory provision 209 d. Instruments expressing no time for payment 210 e. Instruments indorsed when overdue 212 Table or Contents. ix 39. Time of payment — (Continued). page. f. What constitutes determinable future time; statutory provision. 212 g. Instrument payable at fixed period after date or sight 213 h. Instrument payable on or before a certain date 214 i. Instrument payable at a fixed time after a specified event 218 j. Instrument payable upon a contingency 219 k. Instrument payable on day certain, or on happening of event . . 220 1. Effect of provision for extension of time 220 40. Instrument must be payable to order or bearer 221 a. In general 221 b. What are words of negotiability 222 c. When payable to order 223 ( 1 ) Statutory provision 223 (2) Instrument payable to drawer or maker 224 ( 3 ) Instrument drawn by agent, officer, or partner 225 (4) Instrument payable to order of drawee 226 ( 5 ) Instrument payable to joint payees 227 ( 6 ) Instrument payable to one or some of several payees 227 ( 7 ) Instrument payable to holder of an office for time being . . 228 ( 8 ) Payee to be indicated with reasonable certainty 228 d. When payable to bearer 231 ( 1 ) Statutory provision 231 (2) Instrument made expressly payable to bearer 231 (3) Instrument payable to order of fictitious person 231 (4) When name of payee does not purport to be that of any person 233 ( 5 ) When only a last indorsement is in blank 233 41. Additional provisions not affecting negotiability 234 a. Statutory provision , 234 b. Provision authorizing sale of collaterals 235 u. Provision authorizing confession of judgment 238 d. Waiver of benefits of a law intended for protection of obligor. 239 e. Option with holder requiring something in lieu of money 240 42. Omissions not affecting validity and negotiability 241 a. Statutory provision 241 b. Necessity of date 241 c. Use of words " for value received," or equivalent 242 d. Omission of place of execution or payment 243 43. Instruments bearing seal 244 a. General rule 244 b. Statutory rule 245 44. Date of instrument 245 a. In general 245 b. Presumption as to date ; statutory provision 246 c. Ante and post-dated instruments 246 d. When date may be inserted ; statutory provision 248 X Table of Contents. FACE. § 45. Completion of imperfect instrument by holder and effect thereof. . . . 249 a. In general 24& b. Statutory provision 253 c. Incomplete instrument not delivered 253 § 46. Delivery 254 a. Statutory provision 254 b. Necessity of delivery 255 c. What constitutes delivery 256 d. Mode of delivery 257 ( 1 ) In general 257 (2) Conditional delivery 258 e. Presumption of valid delivery 260 ( 1 ) Conclusive as to holder in due course 26& f . Presumption of intentional delivery by placing signature on in- strument 261 i 47. Construction when instrument is ambiguous 262 a. In general 262 b. Discrepancy between words and figures expressing amount .... 262 «. When interest begins to run if no date is specified 264 d. Failure to date 265 e. Conflict between written and printed provisions 265 f . Doubt as to whether instrument is bill or note 266 g. When person deemed indorser 266 h. Words " I promise to pay " in instrument signed by two or more persons 267 § 48. Liability of person signing in trade or assumed name 268 a. Statutory provision 268 b. Reason and application of rule 26S> CHAPTER IV. CONSIDERATION 271-315 § 49. Necessity of consideration 271 a. In general 271 b. Want or failure of consideration as a defense 272 c. Statutory rule ss to absence or failure of consideration 275 d. Requirement of consideration in ease of acceptance or indorse- ment .' 275 § 50. Sufficiency of consideration 277 a. Consideration must be valuable 277 b. Statutory provision as to valuable consideration 277 c. Adequacy 278 d. Where rights, interests, or property are valueless 279 e. Exchange of commercial paper 281 f. Love and affection 281 Table of Contents. xi 50. Sufficiency of consideration — (Continued). page. g. Agreement to marry 282 h. Gratuities and agreements to contribute 282 i. Moral obligation as consideration 284 j. Advancements to heir 285 k. Notes for patent rights 285 1. Acts and services deemed sufficient consideration 286 m. Release and waiver of rights or interests 287 u. Pre-existing and antecedent debts 287 ( 1 ) In general 287 ( 2 ) When holder is holder for value 288 o. Debt of a third person 290 p. Debts against estate of decedent 291 q. Settlement of doubtful claim 291 r. Forbearance 293 s. Extension of time 293 t. Fluctuating balances 294 i 51. Illegality of consideration 294 a. In general 294 b. Immorality 294 c. Against public policy 295 d. In violation of statute 297 i 52. Fraud and mistake 299 a. Fraud 299 b. Fraudulent as to creditors 300 c. Mistake 301 i 53. Presumption of consideration 301 a. Statutory rule 301 b. Presumption as to nonnegotiable instruments 302 c. Expressed consideration 303 d. Burden of proof 303 i 54. Holder for value 305 a. Statutory provision 305 b. Necessity of payment of value 305 c. What constitutes value 305 d. When lien on instrument constitutes lienor a holder for value; statutory provision 307 e. Holder of paper transferred in payment of pre-existing debt . . 308 i 55. Accommodation paper 309 a. Statutory provision 309 b. Nature and object 309 c. Revocable until negotiated , 310 d. Unauthorized diversion 310 e. Holders of accommodation paper transferred before maturity. . 311 f. When paper is transferred after maturity 312 g. Rights and liabilities of accommodation party 313 h. Accommodation party as surety; subrogation; contribution. . 313 xii Table of Contents. CHAPTER V. PAGE. NEGOTIATION 316-357 § 56. What constitutes negotiation 316 a. Statutory provision 316 b. Negotiation by delivery 317 e. Negotiation by Indorsement 318 § 57. Indorsement, how made 320 a. Statutory provision 320 b. General requirement 320 c. Place of indorsement; allonge 321 d. Indorsement on collateral instrument 322 § 58. Indorsement must be of entire instrument 323 a. Statutory provision 323 b. Indorsement to two or more indorsees 324 § 59. Kinds of indorsement 324 a. Statutory provisions 324 b. Special indorsement 325 c. Indorsement in blank 326 d. Effect of indorsement in blank 327 § 60. Restrictive indorsements 328 a. When indorsement restrictive ; statutory provision 328 b. Indorsements for collection 329 c. Indorsements for deposit 330 d. Indorsements in trust . ' 331 e. Effect of restrictive indorsement; statutory provision 332 § 61. Qualified indorsement 333 a. In general 333 b. How made 334 c. Statutory provision 336 § 62. Conditional indorsement 336 a. In general 336 b. Statutory provision 337 § 63. Indorsement of instrument payable to bearer 338 a. Statutory provision 338 § 64. Indorsement of instrument payable to two or more persons 338 a. Statutory provision 338 b. Authority to indorse 339 § 65. Indorsements by or to cashiers, corporate officers, and other persons acting in a representative capacity 339 a. Indorsement to a cashier or ofBcer of a corporation; statutory provision 339 b. Indorsement to bank or corporation 339 c. Indorsement by cashier or treasurer of corporation 340 d. Indorsement in representative capacity 341 Table of Contents. xiii PAGE. 66. Misspelled name of payee or indorsee; presumption as to time and place of indorsement 341 a. Indorsement where name is mispelled; statutory provision... 341 b. Presumption as to time of indorsement; statutory provision. . . 342 c. Presumption as to place of indorsement; statutory provision.. 343 67. Negotiable character of instrument continued 343 a. Statutory provision 343 b. Effect of negotiation of overdue paper 345 c. Discharge of instrument 346 68. Striking out indorsement 346 a. Statutory provision 346 b. Striking out subsequent indorsements 346 c. Striking out special indorsements 347 69. Transfer without indorsement 347 a. Statutory provision 347 b. Effect of transfer 348 c. Effect as equitable assignment 348 d. Notice of transfer without indorsement 350 e. Indorsement when made does not relate back to time of transfer 350 I 70. When prior party may negotiate instrument 352 a. Statutory provision 352 ! 71. Assignment of commercial paper 352 a. Assignability in general 352 b. Assignment of nonnegotiable instruments 353 c. Assignment of separate writing 353 d. Effect of assignment 353 e. Eights of parties 354 CHAPTER VI. EIGHTS OP HOLDEES 358-398 § 72. Right of holder to sue ; payment 358 a. Statutory provision 358 b. Rule at common law 358 § 73. What constitutes a holder in due course 359 a. Statutory provision 359 b. In general 359 c. Instrument complete and regular on its face 360 d. Holder before maturity 360 ( 1 ) In general 360 (2) Indorsement after maturity where transferred before maturity 361 (3) Equities and defenses where paper is transferred after maturity 361 e. Holder in good faith and for value 366 f. Notice of infirmity or defect 366 xiv Table of Contents. PAGE. § 74. When holder of instrument payable on demand deemed holder in due course 367 a. Statutory provision 367 I 75. Notice of infirmity or defect 368 a. Statutory provision 368 b. Actual knowledge 368 c. When an inquiry should be made 369 d. Knowledge that person negotiating instrument is acting in fiduciary capacity 370 c. Suspicious circumstances and gross negligence 371 f. Notice before full amount paid; statutory provision 373 S 76. When title defective 374 a. Statutory provision 374 b. Fraud and duress 374 c. Illegal consideration; usury 379 I 77. Eights of holder in due course 381 a. Statutory provision 381 b. Effect of statute 381 c. Declaratory of the general rule 382 d. Incapacity of parties and want of authority 382 e. Conditions and agreements between original parties 385 I 78. Defenses where instrument is in hands of person who is Hot holder in due course; rights of persons deriving title through holder in due course 387 a. Statutory provision 387 b. Defenses where instrument is in hands of person other than holder in due course 387 c. Person deriving title through holder in due course 388 d. Transfer after maturity 389 e. Application to purchase made by payee from iona fide holder. 390 § 79. Presumption as to holder in due course; burden of proof 390 a. Statutory provision 390 b. Presumption that person is holder in due course 391 e. When burden of proof shifts 393 CHAPTER VII. LIABILITIES OP PARTIES 399-438 § 80. Liability of maker 399 a. Statutory provision 399 b. In general 399 c. Where maker signs as surety 401 d. Existence and rights of payee 402 Table of Contents. xv PAGE. § 81. Liability of drawer 403 a. Statutory provision 403 b. Liability in general 404 c. Words limiting liability 405 I 82. Liability of acceptor 406 a. Statutory provision 406 b. Liability to pay 407 c. Admission of existence of drawer 408 d. Admission of genuineness of signature 408 e. Admission of capacity and authority of drawer 409 f. Admission of existence of payee 410 g. Liability of holder acquiring before acceptance 410 § 83. Contract of indorsement; who deemed indorser 411 a. Contract of indorsement 411 b. Who deemed indorser ; statutory provision 412 § 84. Liability of irregular indorser 412 a. Statutory provision 412 b. General rule 412 K. Effect of statute 417 § 85. Warranties where instrument is negotiated by delivery or quali- fied indorsements 418 a. Statutory provision 418 b. Warranty of genuineness 419 c. Warranty of title 421 d. Warranty of capacity to contract 422 e. Knowledge of fact that would impair validity or render it valueless 422 I 86. Liability of general indorser 424 a. Statutory provision 424 b. Warranty of genuineness, title, and capacity of parties 425 c. Warranty of validity of instrument 427 d. Engagement to pay 428 e. Liability of indorser on instrument negotiable by delivery; statutory provision 429 § 87. Order in which indorsers are liable 430 a. Statutory provision 430 b. Presumption as to order 430 c. Agreement between indorsers 431 d. Indorsement by joint payees and indorsees 432 I 88. Liability of agent or broker 432 a. Statutory provision 432 b. General rule 433 i 89. Liability of accommodation indorsers 433 a. Liability as imposed by statute 433 b. Contract of indorsement; liability in general 433 c. Liability of several accommodation indorsers 435 xvi Table of Contents. CHAPTER VIII. PAGE. PRESENTMENT FOR PAYMENT 439-484 § 90. Necessity for presentment for payment 439 a. Statutory provision 439 b. Presentment unnecessary to charge principal debtor 440 e. Demand necessary to charge drawer and indorsers 442 § 91. When presentment must be made 445 a. Statutory provision 44.5 b. Presentment where instrument is not payable on demand 446 c. Presentment of instrument payable on demand 446 5 92. What constitutes a sufficient presentment 448 a. Statutory provision 448 b. By whom made 449 c. Presentment at reasonable hour 450 d. Place of presentment 451 e. To whom made 452 § 93. Proper place of presentment 453 a. Statutory provision 453 b. Where place of payment is specified 453 c. Where place of payment is not specified, but address of per- son is given 455 d. Where place of payment or address is not specified 456 § 94. Instrument must be exhibited 457 § 95. Presentment where instrument is payable at a bank 459 a. Statutory provision 459 b. Presentment at bank generally 459 c. Presentment during business hours 460 § 96. Presentment where principal debtor is dead 461 § 97. Presentment to persons liable as partners 461 a. Statutory provision 461 b. General rule 462 § 98. Presentment to joint debtors 463 a. Statutory provision 463 § 99. When presentment not required to charge drawer or indorser .... 464 a. When not required to charge drawer ; statutory provision . . 464 b. When not required to charge indorser 466 § 100. When delay in making presentment is excused 467 a. Statutory provision 467 b. Circumstances causing delay 467 § 101. When presentment may be dispensed with 468 a. Statutory provision 468 b. Exercise of reasonable diligence 468 c. Insolvency of principal debtor 470 d. Waiver of presentment 470 Table op Contents. xvii PAGE. 102. Instrument dishonored by nonpayment 472 a. Statutory provision 472 b. Liability of person secondarily liable 473 103. Time of maturity 474 a. Statutory provision 474 b. General rule as to instruments payable on Sunday or a holi- day 475 c. Instruments payable on Saturday 475 104. Days of grace 476 a. Statutory provision 476 b. When allowed 477 105. Time ; how computed 479 a. Statutory provision 479 b. General rule 479 106. Effect of instrument payable at a bank 480 tt. Statutory provision 480 b. Effect of statute ; general rule 480 107. What constitutes payment in due course 483 CHAPTER IX. NOTICE OF DISHONOR • 485-530 § 108. To whom notice of dishonor must be given 485 a. Statutory provision 485 b. Protest ; notice of dishonor 486 c. Effect of failure to give notice 486 d. Notice to a drawer, or one of successive indorsers 487 ' e. Notice of dishonor of nonnegotiable instruments 488 g. Service of notice where party is dead; statutory provision. . . 490 h. Notice to partners ; statutory provision 491 i. Notice to persons jointly liable; statutory provision 492 j. Notice to bankrupt or insolvent; statutory provision 493 § 109. By whom notice to be given 493 a. Statutory provision 493 b. General rule 494 § 110. Notice by agent 495 a. Authority of agent; statutory provision 495 b. When agent may give notice; statutory rule 497 § 111. Benefits of notice 497 a. Where notice is given by or on behalf of holder ; statutory provision 497 b. Where given by or on behalf of party entitled to give notice; statutory rule 49S ii xviil Table op Contents. PAGE. § 112. Sufficiency and form of notice 498 a. When notice sufficient 498 ( 1 ) Statutory provision 498 ( 2 ) Misdescription of instrument and mistake 499 b. Form of notice 500 ( 1 ) Statutory provision 500 (2) Notice may be oral 500 (3) General rule as to sufficiency of notice 501 (4) 'Service by mail 502 ! 113. Time within which notice must be given 502 a. General and statutory rule 502 b. Delay in giving notice, when excusable ; statutory provision . 504 e. Where parties reside in the same place; statutory provision. 505 d. Where parties reside at different places ; statutory provision . 506 e. Notice to successive indorsers ; statutory provision 509 J 114. 'Service of notice by mail 511 a. In general 511 b. Diligence to ascertain address 513 e. Miscarriage in mails 515 d. What constitutes deposit in post-office; statutory provision. 516 § 115. Where notice must be sent 517 a. Statutory provision 517 b. Sufficiency of address 517 I 116. Waiver of notice 517 a. In general 517 b. How waiver of notice may be made; statutory provision. . . . 518 c. Waiver after omission to give notice 518 d. Waiver, express or implied 521 e. By whom made 524 f . Whom affected by waiver ; statutory provision 524 g. Effect of waiver of protest 525 § 117. When notice may be dispensed with 526 a. Statutory provision 526 b. In general 526 c. Diligence required 527 d. When notice need not be given to drawer; statutory provision. 528 e. When notice need not be given to indorser; statutory pro- vision 529 § 118. Notice of dishonor by nonacceptance 530 a. Notice not required where notice of nonacceptance has been given 530 b. Necessity for notice 530 § 119. Protest of negotiable instrument 530 Table of Contents. xix CHAPTER X. PAGE. DISCHARGE OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS 531-555 § 120. How discharged; statutory provision 531 § 121. Discharge by payment 532 a. By whom payment to be made 532 b. To whom payment should be made 534 c. How payment to be made , . 537 § 122. Discharge otherwise than by payment 540 a. By cancellation and surrender 540 b. Statutory provision as to cancellation 541 0. By accord and satisfaction 541 d. By renunciation ; statutory provision 542 e. By alteration 543 f. By operation of law 543 § 123. Discharge of persons secondary liable 544 a. Statutory provision 544 b. ' In general 544 c. By discharge of instrument 545 d. By discharge of prior party 546 e. By extension of time or postponing right to sue 54T f . Effect of extension upon accommodation parties 550 § 124. Rights of parties who discharge instruments 552 a. Statutory provision 552 b. Rights against maker or acceptor 552 c. Rights as against prior party 553 d. Right to negotiate 555 CHAPTER XI. ALTERATION AND FORGERY 556-576 § 125. Effect of alteration ggg a. Statutory provision ggg b. Effect of alteration gg'r e. Authority and consent of parties ggg d. Presumptions as to alterations ggn S 126. What constitutes a material alteration ggn a. Statutory provision ggU b. In general gg, u. Date, time, and place of payment ggo a. Amount; medium of payment; addition of interest clause... 562 e. Change in number or relation of parties gg4 f. Alterations affecting negotiability ggg § 127. Statutory provisions as to forged signature ggg XX Table of Contents. PAGE. § 128. Forged instrument or indorsement thereon 565 a. In general 565 b. Making or alteration of instrument 566 c. Forged indorsement 567 S 129. When party is precluded from setting up forgery 567 a. Estoppel 567 , . b. Ratification 570 § 130. Forgery as a defense 572 S 131. Recovery of money paid on forged instrument 573 a. In general 573 b. Forged signature of drawer 573 c. Forged indorsement 575 CHAPTER XII. SPECIAL PROVISIONS AS TO BILLS OF EXCHANGE; BILLS IN A SET 577-584 § 132. Bill of exchange defined; statutory provision 577 I 133. Bill not an assignment of funds in the hands of the drawee 578 a. Statutory provision 578 b. Reason for rule 578 c. Order payable out of particular fund 579 § 134. Bill addressed to more than one drawee 580 § 135. Inland and foreign bills of exchange 581 § 136. When bill may be treated as a, promissory note 581 § 137. Referee in case of need 581 § 138. Bills in set constitute one bill 582 § 139. Rights and liabilities of holders of different parts 582 a. Where diflferent parts are negotiated 582 b. Liability where parts are indorsed to different persons 583 § 140. Acceptance of bill in a set; payment by acceptor 583 a. Acceptance of bill in a set 583 b. Payment by acceptor 583 c. Effect of discharging one of a, set 584 CHAPTER XIII. PRESENTMENT FOR ACCEPTANCE 585-592 § 141. When presentment for acceptance must be made 585 a. Statutory provision 585 b. Presentment of bills payable after sight 586 § 142. Presentment within reasonable time; effect of failure 587 a. Statutory provision 587 b. General rule 587 c. What is reasonable time 587 Table of Contents. xxi PAGE. 143. Presentment, how made 588 a. Statutory provision 588 b. To whom presentment should be made 589 c. Place of presentment 589 144. Presentment on certain days; presentment where time is insuffi- cient 590 a. On what days presentment may be made 590 b. Presentment where time is insufficient 590 145. When presentment is excused 590 146. Dishonor by nonacceptance 591 a. When bill dishonored by nonacceptance 591 b. Duty of holder where bill is not accepted 592 c. Rights of holder where bill is not accepted 592 CHAPTER XIV. ACCEPTANCE 593-608 § 147. Acceptance, how made 593 a. Statutory provision 593 b. Acceptance may be verbal 594 K. By whom made 595 d. Form of acceptance 595 e. Holder entitled to acceptance on face of bill 596 f. Acceptance by separate instrument 596 § 148. When promise to accept equivalent to acceptance 596 a. Statutory provision 596 b. General rule 597 e. Form and requisites of promise 598 d. Verbal promise to accept 600 e. Conformity with terms of promise 601 § 149. Time allowed to accept 601 § 150. Liability for retention or destruction of bill 602 a. Statutory provision 602 b. Retention of bill 602 § 151. Acceptance of incomplete bill 603 a. Statutory provision 603 b. Acceptance before completion of bill 603 c. Acceptance after maturity or dishonor 604 § 152. Kinds of acceptance; general acceptance 604 a. Kinds of acceptance ; statutory provision , 604 b. Acceptance to pay at a particular place; statutory provision. 605 § 153. Qualified acceptance 605 a. Statutory provision 605 b. Conditional acceptance 606 c. Qualified as to time 607 d. Eights of parties as to qualified acceptance 608 xxii Table of Contents. CHAPTER XV. PAGE. PROTEST OP BILLS OF EXCHANGE 609-619' § 1S4. Protest of foreign bill necessary 609 a. Statutory provision 609 b. Why protest is required 610 § 155. Protest, how made 611 a. Statutory provision 611 b. Eequirements generally 611 e. Certificate of protest as evidence 612 § 156. By whom protest to be made 615 a. Statutory provision 61& b. In general 615 § 157. When protest to be made 616 § 158. Where protest to be made 617 § 159. Special statutory provisions as to protest 618 a. Protest for both nonacceptance and nonpayment 618 b. Protest before maturity where acceptor is insolvent 618 c. Protest where a bill is lost or destroyed 619 d. When protest dispensed with 619' CHAPTER XVI. ACCEPTANCE AND PAYMENT OF BILLS OF EXCHANGE FOR HONOR 620-627 § 160. Acceptance for honor; when and how made 620 a. When bill may be accepted for honor 620 b. How made 621 e. When deemed acceptance for honor of drawer 622 § 161. Liability and rights of acceptor for honor 622 a. Liability of acceptor for honor 622 b. Agreement of acceptor for honor 622 § 162. Maturity of bill payable after sight; protest and dishonor of biii accepted for honor 623- a. Maturity of bill payable after sight 623 b. Protest of bill accepted for honor 623 u. Dishonor of bill by acceptor for honor 623 § 163. Presentment for payment to acceptor for honor 624 a. How made 624 b. Delay in making presentment 624 § 164. Payment for honor 625 a. Who may make 625 b. How made 625 c. Declaration before payment for honor 625 § 165. Rights and liabilities of parties 626 a. Preference of parties offering to pay for honor 626 b. Effect of payment for honor on subsequent parties 626 e. Refusal of holder to receive payment supra protest 626 d. Payer for honor entitled to bill and the protest 627 Table of Contents. xxiii CHAPTER XVII. PAOE. CHECKS 628-638 § 166. Definition and characteristics of a check 628 a. Statutory definition 628 b. Rules governing checks 629 § 167. Presentment of check for payment 630 a. In general 630 b. Effect of delay in presentment 630 u. Effect of delay as to indorser 631 d. What constitutes reasonable time 632 5 168. Certification of check 633 a. Equivalent to acceptance 633 b. Effect of certification 635 § 169. When check operates as an assignment 636 a. Statutory provision 636 b. General rule 637 CHAPTER XVin. WHAT LAW GOVERNS NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS 639-649 § 170. General principles as to law of place 639 § 171. Law governing validity, interpretation, and effect 641 a. Requisites as to form and execution; law of place 641 b. Determination of validity 642 c. As to negotiability 642 S 172. Liabilities of parties 644 a. The drawer and indorser 644 b. The acceptor 645 c. Rights and liabilities of bona fide holders 646 § 173. Transfer by indorsement or assignment 646 a. By indorsement 646 b. Assignment or sale 649 § 174. Demand, protest, and notice of dishonor 649 TABLE OF CASES CITED. •A-. PAGE. Abat V. Holmes 5-16 Abbe V. Newton 279 Abbott V. Creal 57 Abbott V. Fisher 293 Abbott V. Rose 250, 566 Abererombie v. Connor 435 Abercrombie v. Stillman 75 Able V. Shields 363 Aborn v. Bosworth 12 Abt V. Am. Trust & Sav. Bank. . . 642 Acker v. Ledyard 560 Adair v. Brimmer 78 Adair v. Egland 562 Adams v. Adams 295 Adams v. Addington 207 Adams v. Blancan 386 Adams v. Blethen 319 Adams v. Hackensack Imp. Co . . . 537 Adams v. Haekett 299, 302 Adams v. Jenkins 539 Adams v. Johnson 286 Adams v. Jones 258 Adams v. King 228, 229, 230 Adams v. Leland 468, 469 Adams v. Ruggles 116 Adams v. Rutherford 400 Adams v. Seaman 208 Adams v. Soule 306, 317 Adams v. Smith 327 Adams v. Sorbert 470 Adams Bank v. Jones 124 Adams v. Wright 490, 614 Ada Street M. E. Church v. Garn- sey Addison v. Enoch 272 Addy V. Grix 269 ^tna Life Ins. Co. v. Sellers 56 ^tna Nat. Bank v. Charter Oak Life Ins. Co 136, 434 ^tna Nat. Bank v. Fourth Nat. Banic 482 Agawam Bank v. Strever 310 Agawam Nat. Bank v. Downing . . 539 Agee V. Medlock 326 Agnew V. Walden 286 Agricultural Bank v. Bishop .... 549 Agricultural Bank, In re 597 Ague! V. Ellis 187 Aiken v. Barkley 436, 437 Aiken v. Cathcart 252 Ainslee v. Wilson 552 PAGE. Akin V. Jones 329, 637 Alabama Nat. Bank v. Halsey. . . . rf76 AUbert's Exrs. v. Ziegler's Exrs. . . 540 Anderson v. Pope 110 Aldis V. Johnson 489 Aldrich v. Grimes 55 Aldrich v. Jackson 334, 419, 421 Aldrich v. Warren 395 Aldridge v. Jackson 355, 356 Alexander v. Alderson 371 Alexander v. Haskins 57 Alexander v. Huteheson 53 Alexander v. Oaks 195 Alexander v. Rollins 400, 535 Alexander v. Springfield Bank . . . 392 Alexander v. Wilkes 259 Alexandria Bank v. Swann 507 Alexandria Sav. Bank v. McVeigh. 70 Alger V. Scott 579 Alimich v. Downey 242 Alkire v. Jahle 562 Allaire v. Hartshorne 273, 288 289, 307 Allan V. Manson 15 Allen V. Avery 459, 461, 510 Allen V. Berryhill 59, 61 Allen V. Brown 548, 549 Allen V. Bryson 287 Allen V. Chambers 429 Allen V. Clark 356, 421 Allen V. Coit,^-. 127 Allen V. Dykers & Alstyne 236 Allen V. Edmundson 489, 504 Allen V. Furbish 273 Allen V. Harrah 519, 642, 649 Allen V. Lardner 55 Allen V. Leavens 594 Allen v. Mawson 266 Allen V. Merchants' Bank 645 Allen V. Rightmere 445 Allen V. Pegram 38, 334 Allen V. Suydam 586, 587 Allen V. Wilkins 67, 69 Allin V. Williams 82, 553 Allison V. Hubbell 145 AUwood V. Haseldon 470 AUwood V. Hazelton 344 Almieh v. Downey 246 Almy V. Winslow 26, 173 Alston V. Steartman 340 Altenborough v. McKenzie 352 [xxv] XXVI Table of Cases Cited. FA&B. Altman v. Anton 310 Altman v. Rittershofer 205, 208 Alvord V. Baker 409 Amberland Bank v. Hann 344 American Bank v. Jenness . . 368, 532 American Boiler Co. v. Fontham. 188 American Exchange !Nat. Bank v. Oregon Pottery Co 139, 371 American Exchange Nat. Bank v. New York Belting, etc., Co, 372, 394 American Express Co. v. Haire. . 12 American Ins. Co. v. Stratton. . 84 American Mtge. Co. v. Wright. . 53 American, etc., Mtge. & Ins. Co. V. Marquam 551 American 2N at. Bank v. Junk Bros. Lumber Mfg. Co. ... 440, 466, 493 American Nat. Bank v. Sargent. . 396 American Nat. Bank v. Sprague. . 180 199 American, etc., K. Co. v. Metro- politan Nat. Bank 637 American Trust & Banking Co. V. Boone 59 American Water-Works Co. v. Venner 601 Ames V. Drew 535 Amor V. Stoeekle 519 Amory v. Meryweather 387 Amoskeag Bank v. Moore 472 Amsbaugh v. Gfearhart 343 Ancona v. Marks 22 Anderson v. Anderson 551 Anderson v. Bellinger 564 Anderson v. Drake 243 Anderson v. Earns 296 Anderson v. Jacobaon 63 Anderson v. Shoup 97 Anderson v. Smith 46 Anderson v. Soward 53 Anderson v. Weston 342 Anderton v. Shoup 84 Andover v. Grafton 90 Andrews v. Baggs 606 Andrews v. Blachly 31 Andrews v. Bond 339 Andrews v. Hart 376 Andrews v. Harvey 186, 188 Andrews v. Robertson 391 Andrus Bank v. Kimball 249 Angel V. McLellan 46 Angle V. North West. M. L. Ins. Co 250 Anglo-California Bank y. Ames . . 383 Aniba v. Yeomans 319 Annan v. Houck 344, 365 Anniston Pipe Works v. Furnace Co 391 Annville Nat. Bank v. Kettering.. 471 521, 525 PAGE. Anstel V. Rice 278, 293, 375 Anten v. Gruner 370 Antigo Bank v. Nat. Trust Co 638 Apperson v. Bynum. . . 454, 456, 459 Applegarth v. Abbott 52^4 Arborn v. Bosworth 464 Arbuckle v. Reaume 643 Arbuckle v. Templeton 267 Archer v. Claflin 241 Archer v. Shea 311, 426 Ardesco Oil Co. v. GUaon 144 Armiston L. & T. Oo; v. Stickney. 221 Armour v. McMicha«1 307 Armour Bros.' Banking Co. v. Riley County Bank 332 Armstrong v. Am. Exchange Bank, 12 Armstrong v. Chadwick 524 Armstrong v. Christian! 500 Armstrong v. Gibson 298 Armstrong v. Harshman 251 Armstrong, In re 600 Armstrong v. Lester 297 Armstrong v. Nat. Bank 233 Armstrong v. Noble 365 Armstrong v. Penn 562 Armstrong v. Thuraton 501 Arnold v. Camp 128 Arnold v. Dresser 457, 459, 519 Arnold v. Kenlock 501 Arnold v. Rock River Valley Union R. Co.... 181, 185, 235, 237 Arnold V. Sprague. 18, 97, 276, 302, 594 Arnous v. Lesassier 61 Arnson v. Abrahamson 311 Arpin v. Owens 410 Artisans' Bank v. Backus 501 Artisans' Bank v. Park Bank 647 Ashbrook v. Dale 294 Ashptiel T. Bryan 408 Ashuelot Nat. Bank of Keene v. School District 155 Atchison Board of Education v. De Kay 155 Atherton v. Marcy 293 Atkins V. Cobb 329 Atkinson v. Brooks 313 Atkinson v. Manks 187, 189, 241 Atkinson v. Marks 607 Atkinson v. St. Croix Mfg. Co. . . 139 Atlantic Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Young 228 Atlantic State Bank v. Savery. . . 115 119 Atlas Nat. Bank v. Hohn.. 372, 392 Attenborough v. Clarke 307 Attorney-GJeneral v. American Steam Boiler Ins. Co., People ex rel 141 Attorney-General v. Conn. Life Ins. Co 63r Table of Cases Cited. XXVll PAGE. Attorney-General v. Life & Fire Ins. Co 134 Attwood V. Munnings 81, 98 Atwell V. Jenkins 61 Atwood V. Crowdle 294 Atwood V. Lester 415 Atwood V. Munnings 589 Aud V. Magruder 401 Auerbach v. Le Sueur Mill Co. . . 133 135, 138, 385 Augusta Bank v. Augusta 38 Aultmian v. Stout 207 Austen v. Gruner 376 Austin V. Burns 17, 176 Austin V. Colony 148 Austin V. Holland 130 Austin V. Miller 495 Austin V. Rodman 465, 586 Austin V. Vandermark. 116, 120, 371 Auten V. Crahan 211 Averett v. Booker 188, 302 Averman v. Robb 559 Avery v. Eowell 119 Ayeock v. Braun 296 Ayer v. Hutchins 361, 368 Ayer v. Warren 63 Aymar v. Beers 586 Aymar v. Sheldon 644, 645, 647 648, 649 B. Babbett v. Young 97 Babcock v. Beman 100 Babcock v. Blanchard 533 Babcock, In re 314 Babcock, Matter of 407 Babcock v. Orbison 33 B. & N. R. R. Co. V. National Bank 289 Baehellor v. Priest 587 Bachman v. Jenks 643 Backus V. Shipherd 525, 526 Backus V. Spalding 281 Bacon v. Bates 199 Bacon v. Burnham 267, 388, 413 417, 434 Bacon v. Fiteb 229 Bacon v. Hanna 514 Bacon v. Lamb 538 Bacus V. Danforth 221 ■ Badgley v. Botrain 353 Baer v. Leppert 515, 524 Baer v. Lichtcn 81 Bahnsen v. Gilbert 391 Bailey v. Bidwell 388 Bailey v. Cromwell 280 Bailey v. Dozier 617 Bailey v. Lane 276 Bailey v. Porter 500 Bailey v. Southwestern E. Bank . . 225 529 PAGE. Baileyville v. Lowell 148 Bain v. Gregory 500 Baird v. Underwood 176 Baker v. Adams 27 Baker v. Chambles 91, 103 Baker v. Cotter 141 Baker v. Dening 269 Baker v. Dobbins 607 Baker, Ex parte 493 Baker v. Kennett 53 Baker v. Kinsey 362 Baker v. Lovett 43 Baker v. Martin 533 Baker v. Morris 487, 488 Baker v. Phelps 441 Baker v. Scott 525 Baker v. Stone 45 Baker v. Todd 196 Baker v. Union Stock Yards Nat. Bank 311 Baker v. Wheaton 363 Balch, Ex parte 550 Balch V. Onion 392 Baldwin v. Barrows 378 Baldwin v. Freydendall 248 Baldwin v. Van Dusen 422 Baldwin v. Vandusen 355 Balf ord v. Bangs 442 Ball V. Con. Franklinite Co. ... . 642 Ball V. Dunsterville 165 Ball V. Greaud , 526 Ball V. Hill 391 Ballard v. Burton 293, 401 Ballard v. Green 299 Ballard v. Gremburch 532 Ballard r. Webster 400 BaJlingall v. Gloster 406 Ballou v. Boland 580 Ballon V. Talbot 87, 146 Balme v. Wambaugh 441 Bait. & Ohio E. R. Co. v. Wilkens. 33 Banburry v. Lissett 186 Banchor v. Mauser 642 Bancroft v. Haines 244 Bancroft v. Hall 509 Bancroft v. Paine 326 Banfield v. Rumsey 282 Range v. Flint 323 Banker v. Armstrong 425 Bank v. Barrett 185 Bank v. Porter 615 Bank v. Schuler 638 Bank v. Shaw 34 Bank v. Sneed 57 Bank v. Stockton 148 Bank v. Wheeler 102 Bank of Albion v. Smith 428 Bank of Alexandria v. Swann. . . . 499 503, 508 Bank of Antigo v. Ryan 188 XXVIU Table of Cases Cited. PAGE. Bank of Attioa v. Pettier & Sty- mus Mfg. Co 141 Bank of Auburn v. Putnam. 136, 490 Bank of Bennington V. Raymond . . 586 Bank of British North America v. Barling 225 Bank of British North America v. Ellis 207, 273, 411, 434' Bank of British North America v. Merchants' Nat. Bank 635 Bank of Cape Fear v. Seawell 495 Bank of Cape Fear v. Stinemetz. . 12 Bank of Carroll v. Taylor 237 Bank of Chenango v. Curtiss .... 548 Bank of Chillicothe v. Town of Chillicothe 148 Bank of Clark County v. Oilman. 329 Bank of Columbia v. Magruder. . 512 Bank of Commerce v. Rutland & W. R. Co 12 Bank of Commerce v. Union Bank 408 Bank of Commonwealth v. Mud- gett 490, 613 Bank of Cooperstown v. Woods . . 499 611 Bank of England v. Vagliano . . . . ' 232 Bank of Genesee v. Patchin Bank. 102 134, 137, 144, 147, 269, 340 Bank of Geneva v. Howlett. . 512, 517 Bank of Illinois v. Bradt 647 Bank of Illinois v. Taylor 517 Bank of Ireland v. Beresford. . . . 551 Bank of Ireland v. Evans' Trus- tees 254 Bank of Jamaica v. Jefferson .... 432 Bank of Kentucky v. Brooking.. 120 Bank of Kentucky v. Floyd 547 Bank of Kentucky v. Barey, 450, 616 Bank of Kentucky V. Pursley, 611, 613 Bank of Lassen County v. Sherer. 164 318 BSink of Lindsborg v. Ober 495 Banlc of Louisville v. Ellery.... 410 Bank of Metropolis v. Brent 459 BanK of Metropolis v. First Nat. Bank 359 Bank of Metropolis v. New Eng- land Bank 329 Bank of Michigan v. Ely 598 Bank of Missouri v. Price 143 Bank of Mobile v. Brown 444 Bank of Mobile v. Hall 289 Bank of Monongahela Valley v. Weston 121, 129, 130 Bank of Montgomery v. Walker. 466 Bank of Montreal v. Page 131 Bank of Montreal >. Richter . . . 394 Bank of Newburg v. Richards. . . 401 Bank of New York v. Am. Dock Co 385 PAGE. Bank of New York v. Bank of Ohio 100, 102 Bank of New York, etc. v. Ameri- can Dock & T. Co 143 Bank of North America v. Em- bury 165 Bank of North America v. Var- don 502 Bank of Old Dominion v. Mc- Veigh 505 Bank of Orange County v. Colby. 64.1 Bank of Pittsburgh v. Neal 397 583, 603 Bank of Port Jefferson v. Dar- ling 490, 527 Bank of Red Oak v. Orvis . . 456, 463 Bank of Rochester v. Gould 499 Bank of Rochester v. Monteath. . 123 124 Bank of Rome v. Village of Rome. 244 Bank of St. Albans v. Gilliland. 123 289, 371 Bank of Salina v. Babcock.. 288, 309 Bank of State v. Bank of Cape Pear 454 Bank of State v. Craft 442 Bank of Tennessee v. Safferrans. 119 120, 121 Bank of Tennessee v. OfiScer .... 480 Bank of United States v. Bank of Georgia 191, 572 Bank of United States v. Beirne. 436 Bank of United States v. Carneal. 454 512 Bank of United States v. God- dard 495 Bank of United States v. Hatch. 548 Bank of United States v. Leath- ers 519, 613 Bank of United States v. Lee . . . 548 Bank of United States v. Moore. 347 Bank of United States v. Weisi- ger 276 Bank of Vergennes v. Cameron.. 120 Bank of University v. Hamilton. 100 Bank of University v. Tuck .... 536 Bank of Utiea v. Bender. . . 513, 528 Bank of Utica v. Ives 549, 550 Bank of Utica v. Smith. 499, 461, 494 Bank of Washington v. Reynolds. 77 Bank of Washington v. Triplett.. 32 586 Bank of Winona v. Moffard 359 Bank of Woodstock v. Kent 359 Banks v. Marshall 541 Bannister v. Rouse 238 Banorgee v. Hovey 37, 598 Barber v. Ginzell 82 Barber v. Kerr 375 BarboTir v. Washington Fire & Marine Ins. Co 536 Table of Cases Cited. PAGE. Barclay v. Bailey 450, 451 Barclay v. Pursley 84 Barclay v. Weaver 470, 518 Bardsley v. Delp 289, 307 Barfield v. State 566 Barhydt v. Ellis '. . 547 Baring v. Clark 623 Barkalow v. Johnson 519, 520 Barker v. Liehtenberger 389 Barker v. Mechanic Ins. Co. . . 88, 90 133, 146 Barker v. Parker.. 436, 467, 475, 477 Barker v. Prentice 330 Barker v. Valentine 364 Barker v. Webster 506 Barker v. Whitney 509 Barkhamsted v. Case 299 Barlow v. Bishop 67, 68 Barlow v. Congregational Society, 91 97 Barlow v. Planters' Bank .. 478, 480 Barnard v. Campbell 34 Barnard v. Gushing 180 Barnard v. Gaslin 405 Barner v. Moorehead 273 Barnes v. De Prance 69 Barnes v. Gorman 17 Barnes v. Jackson 296 Barnes v. McMuUins 365 Barnes v. Ontario Bank 134 Barnes v. Peet 391 Barnes v. Perine 283 Barnes v. Reynolds 250, 491 Barnes v. Vaughn 446, 454 Barnet v. Smith 29, 594, 633 Barnett v. Ringgold 535 Barnett v. Skinner 267 Barnett v. Wills 469 Barney v. Worthington 599 Barnum v. Phoenix 366 Barnwell v. Mitchell 513, 514 Barr v. Baker 275 Barr v. Leppert 449 Barr v. Marsh 514, 527 Barrett v. Dodge 257, 641 Barrett v. Gillard 649 Barrett v. Hinckley 353 Barrett v. Swann 109, 124 Barrett v. Walker 646 Barrick v. Austin 145, 342, 393 Barron v. Cady 550 Barry v. Capen- ; 296 Barry V. ' Crowley ; 462 Barry v. Lambert 77 Barry v. Morse 405 Bartel v. Brown 537 Bartell v. Isbell 525 Bartlett v. Hawley 96 Bartlett v. Lee 405 Bartlett v. Powell Ill PAGE. Barlett v. Kobinson 513, 517 Bartlett v. 'Smith 14 Bartlett v. Tucker 269 Barton v. Baker 523 Barton v. Stewart 375 Basket v. Hassell 282 Bassenhorst v. Wilby. . 344, 345, 448 Bassett v. Avery 390 Bastine v. Wilding 392 Bateman v. Mid- Wales By. Co. . . 134 Bates V. Ball 62 Bates V. Butler 18, 222 Bates V. Keith Iron Co 130, 141 Bates V. Pricket 343 Bates V. Eylaud 443 Bateson v. Clark 456 Batly V. Carswell 81 Battersby v. Calkins 391 Battle V. Weems 313, 361 Battles V. Laudenslager 392 Batty V. Carswell 82 Baucom v. Smith 360, 362 Bauer v. Bauer '62, 66 Baumgardner v. Reeves .... 612, 613 Baxendale v. Bennett 264 Baxter v. Ellis 397 Baxter v. Little 364 Bay V. Coddington 370 Bayard v. Lathy 37, 598 Bayley v. Tabor 242, 247, 379 Bayliss v. Peterson 103 Bays T. Connor 113 Beach v. Endress 540 Beach v. First M. B. Church 284 Beach v. King 74 Beach v. State Bank ... 37, 119, 311 Beal v. Alexander 426, 495 Beale v. Parish 498, 527 Beall V. General Electric Co. ... 234 318, 390, 434 Beall V. January . . . 2D9 Beall V. Pearre 273 Beals V. Peck 491, 501 Beals v. See 56 Beaman v. Lyon 401 Bean v. Briggs 27, 178 Bean v. Jones 300 Bean v. Kutschan 207 Bean v. McCord 63 Bean v. Pioneer Mining Co 93 Beattie v. Brown 429 Beattie v. National Bank of Illi- nois ..::..;.; 566 Beard v. De'dolph 3'50 Beard V. Westerman 522 Beardsley v. Baldwin 179, 220 Beardsley v. Cook 607 Beardsley v. Warner 547 Beardsley v. Webber 27, 178 211, 442 Beauregarde v. Knowlton 464 XXX Table of Cases Cited. PAGE. Beavan v. Lewis 127 Beck V. Thompsoli 519 Beckwith v. Smith 517 Bedell v. Covell 327 Bedell v. Scarlett 94, 97 Bedford Bank v. Acoam 482 Bedford Commercial Ins. Co. v. Covell 84 Bedford v. Hunt 286 Bedinger v. Wharton 35 Beech v. State Bank .5'98 Beeching v. Westbrook 26, 173 Beeler v. Young 47, 48 Beeman v. Duck 575 Beers v. Phtenix Glass Co 138 Beeson v. Howard 303 Begler v. Merchants' Loan & Trust Co 181 Beland v. Anheuser-Busch Brew- ing Assn 301 Belcher v. Smith 320 Belden v. Hann 327 Belford v. Beatty 264 Belknap v. National Bank of North America 565 Bell V. Caflerty 420, 426 Bell V. Dagg 426 Bell V. First Nat. Bank 32 Bell V. Hagerstown Bank 474 507, 512 Bell V. Leggett 297 Bell V. Lent 615 Bell V. Lord Ingestre 258 Bell V. Mahin 255, 558, 559 Bell V. Morehead 346 Bell V. Morrison 131 Bell V. Martin 548 Bell V. Pletscher 603 Bell V. Sackett 478 Bell V. Spotts 391 Bell V. State Bank 512 Bell V. Stewart 629 Bell V. Wandley 167 Belleville Sav. Bank v. Bovmian. 260 Bellows Falls Bank v. Butland County Bank 28, 178 Bellows V. Folsom 260 Belmont Bank v. Patterson 469 Belmont Branch Bank v. Hoge. . . 367 397 Bement v. McClaren 376 Benadum v. Pratt 63 Benecke v. Haebler 598 Benedict v. Cowden 337 Benedict v. De Groat 390 Benedict v. Rose 517 Benedict V. Schmeig 516 Benedict v. Shomeig 463 Benham v. German- Am. Babk. . . . 154 155 Benham v. Smith 94, 93 PAGE. Beninger v. Corwin 278, 279 Benjamin v. Sogers 388 Benjamin v. Tillman 409 Benn V. Kutschan 434 Bennet v. Smith 380 Bennett Buck v. iterriek 229» Buckley v. Bently 471, 51» 521, 524 Buckley v. Briggs 144 Buckley v. Second Nat. Bank 567 Buckuer v. Finlay 12, IS Buekner v. Lee 125 Buekner v. Real Estate Bank. ... 317 Bueltner v. Steinbrecker 371 BuflFalo City Bank v. Howard 130 Buhler v. Gait 257 Bull V. Kasson Nat. Bank 29, 33 190, 193, 212, 502, 632 Bull V. Sims 183: BuUard v. Randall 29, 63T Bullen v. Milwaukee Trading Co. 142' 143: BuUer v. Crips 10, 21 Bullock V. Nally 325i Bullock V. Ogden 291 Bullock V. Taylor 204 Bullpin V. Clarke 64 Bulwingle v. Cramer 97 Bunker v. Osborn 426 Bunu V. Postel 56 Bunnell v. Butler 273 Buno V. Gabriel 374 Bunting v. Mick 16 Burbank v. Beach 449, 496, 615 Burbank v. French 255 Burbank v. Posey ga Burbridge v. Manners 502, 503 Burch v. Pope 389 Burckle v. Eckhard 105, 106 Burdick v. Green , 326 Burg V. Legge. 486 Burger v. Belsley 63 Burgen v. Straughn 294 Burgess v. Chapin 424 Burgess v. Pollock 56 Burgess v. Vreeland 503 XXXIV Table of Cases Cited. PAGE. Burgett V. Barrick 55 Burke v. Allen 60 Burke v. Dulaney 269 Burke v. McKay 495 Burk V. Shrieve 612 Burke v. Utah Nat. Bank 599 Burkhalter v. Second Nat. Bank. 538 632 Burley v. Russell 45 Burlingame v. Brewster 90 Burlingame v. Poster 513 Burlington First Nat. Bank v. Hatch 588 Burmester v. Norris 134 Burnham v. Allen 263 Burnham v. Spring 464 Burnham v. Tucker 362 Burnham V. Webster... 102, 145, 496 Bums V. Kahu 247 Burns v. Lynde 165 Burns v. Moore 241 Burrell v. Smith 427 Burroughs v. Hannegan 523 Burroughs v. Moss 364 Burroughs v. Richman 61 Burson v. Huntington 254, 255 261, 262 Burt V. Parish 524 Burthe v. Donaldson 210 Burton v. Goodspeed 105 Burton v. Grand Eapids School Furniture Co 90 Burton v. Wynne 361 Bush V. Breining 61 Bush V. Brown 273 Bush V. Gilmore 440 Bush V. Linthicum '. . 45 Bussard v. Levering 507 Butler V. Baber , 66 Butler V. Cams 377 Butler V. Duval 509 Butler V. Miller 300 Butler V. Mulvihill 61 Butler v. Paine 191 Butler V. Sloeumb 434 Butler V. Stocking 119 Butler V. Wright 554 Butterfield v. Hemsley 119 Button v. Eathbone 289 Butts V. Cuthbertson 133 Buxton V. Jones 453 Bynum v. Apperson 454, 505 Byers v. Tritch 416 Byram v. Hunter 519, 520 Byrne v. Schwing 409 C. Cable V. Hardin 539 Cabot Bank v. Morton 433 Cabot Bank v. Russell 514 PAGE. Cabot Bank v. Warner 497, 506 Cady V. Bond 557 Cady V. Bradshaw 471, 521, 522 Cady V. Shepard 413 Cahall V. Citizens' Mut. Bldg. Assn 402 Cahen v. Everitt 393 Cahn V. Dooley 386 Cahn V. Dutton 415 Cahokia v. Rautenberg 103 Cahoon v. Moore 75 Cake V. Northumberland County Nat. Banli 435 Caldwell v. Cassidy 441 Caldwell v. Cook 355 Caldwell v. Porter 469 California Bank v. Sayre 167 Callahan v. Bancroft 376 Callahan v. Bank of Kentucky. . 493 Callahan v. Crow 362 Callahan v. Williams 441 Callen v. Fawcett 494 Callow V. Lawrence 344 Camden v. Doremus 554 Camden Safe Dep. Co. v. Abbott. 81 Came v. Brigham 133 Cameron v. Chappell 275, 386 Camidge v. Allenby 493 Camp V. Sturdevant 391 Campbell, In re 540 Campbell v. Brown 274 Campbell v. Clarke 243 Campbell v. French 210, 213 Campbell v. Hoff 394 Campbell v. Nichols 641 Campbell v. Pettengill 527, 606 Campbell v. Skinner 542 Campbell v. Swasey ■ 405 Campbell v. Varney 520 Campbell Printing Press Co. v. Jones 264 Canadian Bank v. Coumbs 551 Canajoharie Nat. Bank v. Diefen- dorf 370, 373., 393, 396 Canal Bank v. Bank of Albany. . 433 C75 Canal Bank v. Partee 65 Canfield v. McHwaine 327 Cann v. Cann's Heirs 258 Cannon v. Beggs 265 Canon v. Grigsby 251 Canonsberg Iron Co. v. Union Nat. Bank 538 Cantine v. Philips' Admr 47 Capell V. Long 362 Capital Bank v. Armstrong 560 Capital City Ins. Co. v. Quinn. . . 15 407 Capital City State Bank v. Des Moines Cotton Mill Co 310 Caples v. Branhan 302 Table op Cases Cited. XXXV PAGE. Capps V. Smith 273 Cardwell v. Allen 487 Carew v. Duel?worth 526 Carey v. Giles 145 Carey v. McDougald 27, 28 Carey v. Miller 378 Carey v. White 548 CargiU V. Corby Ill Carleton v. Brooks 189 Carlisle v. Hill 306, 523 Carlisle v. Hooks 607 Carlisle v. Wishart 289 Carlon v. Kennealy 201 Carlos V. Fancourt 176, 177, 186 Carlton v. Bailey 299 Carmena v. Mix 524 Came v. Brigham 144 Oarnell v. Eedrow 105 Garner v. Pratt 520 Carney v. Downey 290 Carnwright v. Gray 17, 18, 219 222, 242, 272, 301, 302 Carolma Nat. Bank v. Wallace.. 491 Carpenter v. Carpenter 45 Carpenter v. Farnsworth . . . . 92, 227 Carpenter v. McLaughlin 415 Carpenter v. National Bank. ... 310 Carpenter v. Northborough Nat. Bank 567, 576 Carpenter v. Oaks 415 Carpenter v. Page 291 Carr v. Le Fevre 37 Carr v. Nat. Surety Bank. . . 519, 637 Carr v. Silloway 283 Carran v. Little 180, 580 Carrier v. Cameron... 108, 109, 118 Carrier v. Sears 60, 386 Carrington v. Odom 413 Carroll v. Blenco 63 Carroll v. Malone 355 Carroll v. Peters 313 Carroll v. Sweet 631, 632 Carroll v. Weid 276 Carrollton Bank v. Tayleur 598 Carroll County Savings Bank v. Strother 202, 216 Carson v. Alexander 520 Carson v. Lucas 26, 173 Carter v. Bradley 487 Carter v. Burley 12, 507, 508 510, 649 Carter v. Downieh 10 Carter v. Flower 486 Carter v. Lehman 234, 318, 348 Carter v. MeClintock 255, 375 Carter v. Moulton 260 Carter v. Odom 288 Carter v. Smith 441 Carter v. Steele 108 Carter v. Union Bank. 616, 642, 649 Cartwright v, Gardner 301 PAGE. Caruth v. Thompson... 234, 318, 327 Carver v. Hayes 25 Carver v. Warren 163 Cary v. Bancroft 537 Cary v. Western Union Tel. Co. . 296 Gary-Lombard Co. v. First Nat. Bank 479 Casco Bank v. Hills 108 Casco Bank v. Keene 168 Casco Nat. Bank v. Clark ... 84, 92 Case V. Bradburn 426 Case V. Gerrish 297 Case V. Grim 274 Case V. Mechanics' Banking Assn. 341 Case V. Morris 464 Case Threshing Machine Co. v. Peterson 560 Cason v. Heath 533 Cassel V. Dows 37, 347, 598 Cassidy v. First Nat. Bank 27 Cassidy v. Hall 105 Cassidy v. Kreamer 428, 442 Castle V. Belfast Foundry Co 141 Castle V. Eickly 416, 445 Castrique v. Bernabo 473 Castrique v. Imrie 541 Cate V. Patterson 27 Cathell V. Goodwin 527 Catliu V. Gunter 256 Cattron v. First Univ. Soc 140 Caulkins v. Fry 62, 383 Caulkins v. Whisler 566 Causin v. Taylor 265 Cawine v. Browinski 632 Caye v. Palmer 431 Cayuga County Bank v. Bennett. 490 Cayuga County Bank v. Hunt . . . 360 451, 463, 487, 499, 612 Cayuga County Bank v. Purdy. . 17 208 Cazet v. Kirk 202 Centoine v. Morshead 71 Central Bank v. Allen 456, 460 Central Bank v. Davis 327 Central Bank v. Lang 359 Central Nat. Bank v. Adams ... 514 Central Nat. Bank v. Charlotte, etc., E. Co 244 Central Nat. Bank v. Frye 115 Central Nat. Bank v. Levin .... 504 Central Nat. Bank v. Valentine. 306 Central Park Bank v. Empire Stone Dressing Co 136 Central E. Co. v. First Nat. Bank. 329 Central Savings Bank v. Richards. 598 Central Trust Co. v. First Nat. Bank 361 Central Trust Co. v. Folsom . . . 535 Central Trust Co. v. Wyandotte Bank 359 XXXVl Table of Cases Cited. PAGE. Chadsey v. MeCreery 340 Chaffee v. Garrett 280 Chaffee v. Granger 148 Chalfant v. Payton 295 Challiss V. McCrum 421 Chamberlain v. Gorham 354 Chamberlain v. Maitland 475 Chamberlain v. Pacific Wool-Grow- ing Co 90 Chamberlain v. Stowe 519 Chambers v. George 190 Chambers v. Hill 211 Chambers v. Union Nat. Bank . . 426 Chambers v. Wright 472 Chambliss v. Matthews 477 Champion v. Bostwiek 104 Champion v. Gordon 32, 247 478, 628 Champion Empire Mining Co. v. Bird 392 Champion v. Mumford 108 Chandler v. Belden 34 Chandler v. Calvert 203 Chandler v. Carey 178 Chandler v. Coe 97 Chandler v. Drew 363 Chandler v. Kennedy 207, 208 Chandler v. Simmons 55 Chapin v. Dobson 259 Chapman v. City Council 77 Chapman v. Lisoomb 527 Chapman v. Rose 376, 377 Chapman v. Ogden 288, 516 Chapman v. White 212, 637 Chapman v. Wright 179 Chappell V. Allen 365 Chappel V. Brockway 295 Charles v. Dennis 387, 429 Charles v. Jacob 78 Charleton v. Reed 216, 220, 562 Charnley v. Dulles 28 Chase v. Barrett 104 Chase v. Behrman 185, 209 Chase v. Chase 64 Chase v. Dow 641 Chase v. Hathorn 333 Chase v. Kelly 354 Chase v. Kendall 129 Chase v. 'Senn 209 Chase v. Whitmore 363 Chase Nat. Bank v. Faurot 244 Chatham Bank v. Allison 617 642, 649 Chattanooga Grocery Co. v. Liv- ingston 606 Chautauqua County Bank v. Davis. 347 Chazowines v. Edwards 124 Cheeseborough v. Conover 296 Cheetham v. Ward 78 Cheever v. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. 143 372, 385 PAGE. Chemung Canal Bank v. Bradner. 108 119 Cheney v. Jansent 380 Chenot x. Lefevre 229 Chenowith v. Chamberlain 12 119, 120 Cheshire v. Barrett 51 Chester v. Dorr... 313, 362, 366, 555 Chicago Bldg. Soc. v. Crowell... 144 Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Burns 30 Chicago, Cinn. & L. R; R. Co. v. West 529 Chicago Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Keiron 190 Chicago First Nat. Bank v. North- western Nat. Bank 426 Chicago Ry. Equipment Co. v. Merchants' Nat. Bank of Chi- cago 201, 237 Chicago, E. I. & Pac. R. R. Co. v. Havard 39 Chicago Trust & Sav. Bank v. Chi- cago Title & Trust Co 176 Chick V. Plllsbury 508, 509 Chicopee Bank v. Philadelphia Bank 258, 459 Child V. Child 79 Childs V. Monins 73 Childs V. Wymah 343, 415 Childers v. Boulnois 26, 173 Chillicothe Branch of State Bank V. Fox 100 Chimberg v. Gale Harrow Mfg. Co. 535 Chipman v. Foster 92 Chipman v. Tucker 255 Chism V. First Nat. Bank 573 Chism V. Toomer 560 Choquette v. Leclaire 572 Christian County Bank v. Goode. 200 202, 204 Christman v. Harman 532 Chrysler v. Renois 189, 288, 309 Church v. Barlow 434, 449, 496 Church V. Clark 460 Church V. Fole 557 Church V. Muir 300 Cincinnati Oyster & Fish Co. v. Lafayette Nat. Bank 635 Cisne v. Chidester 220, 392 Citizens' Bank v. Bolen 281 Citizens' Bank v. Grafflin 507 Citizens' Sav. Bank v. Hays .... 491 Citizens' Bank v. Howell 613 Citizens' Bank v. Kendrick 553 Citizens' Bank v. Leonhart 369 Citizens' Bank v. Ryman b06 Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Brown. 27, 28 Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Hooper . . 372 Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Lilienthal. 311 Table of Cases Cited. XXXVll PAGE. Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Piollet . . 176 177, 221 Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Smith ... 378 Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Weston ..122 393 Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Williams. 559 City Bank v. Perkins 145 City Bank v. Taylor 536 City Bank of Brooklyn v. Mc- Chesney 130 City Bank of Columbus v. Phil- lips 375 City Bank of Dowagiac v. Dill.. 360 City Nat. Bank v. Clinton County Nat. Bank 519 City Sav. Bank v. Hopson 524 City Electric St. R. Co. v. First Nat. Exch. Bank 139 City of Coldwater v. Tucker 158 City of Norfolk v. Babcock, State ex rel 148, 150 City of Peru v. French 63 City of Richmond v. McGirr . . . 148 City of Vicksburg v. Lombard. . . 156 City of Williamsport v. Common- wealth 148, 149 Claflin V. Boorum 380 Claflin V. Reese 445 Claflin V. Wilson 359 Claiborne County v. Brooks 155 Clanin v. Esterly Machine Co . . . 260 Clapp V. Rice 432, 436, 437 Clark V. American Coal Co 39 Clark V. Blackington 75 Clark V. Butts 540 Clark V. Bryee 260 Clark V. Callison 351 Clark V. Castleman 465 Clark V. Clark 69 Clark V. Des Moines 154, 156 157, 158 Clark V. Evans 372 Clark V. Farmers' Woolen Mfg. Co 244, 245 Clark V. Gallagher 305 Clark V. Garfield 79 Clark V. Gramling 78 Clark V. Hyman 119 Clark V. Marlow 172 Clark V. Moses , 441 Clark V. Northampton Nat. Bank. 307 Clark V. Peabody 572 Clark V. Ricker 297 Clark V. Rumsey 104 Clark V. School District No. 7. . . 134 148 Clark V. Thayer 310 Clark V. Titcomb 341 Clark V. Sigourney 318, 363 Clark V. Sisson 380 Clark V. Skeen 211, 217 PAGE. Clark V. Valentine 63 Clark V. Whitaker 350, 361 Clarke v. Cock 597 Clarke v. Dederiek 364 Clark Nat. Bank v. Albion Bank. 634 Clason V. Bailey 163 Clay V. Cottrell 124, 362 Claxon. V. Demaree 301 Claxton V. Swift 543 Cleaveland v,. Stewart 94 Clement v. Reppard 273 Clements v. Hall 238, 239 Clements v. Lee 158 Clerk V. Martin 21 Cleveland V. Harrison 75 Cleveland v. Stewart 146 Clift V. Rodger 523 Clifton V. Bank of Aberdeen 207 Cline V. Guthrie 377 Clode V. Bayley 497 Closson V. Stearns 320 Closz V. Miracle 519 Clothier v. Adrianee 413 Clough V. Patrick 285 Cloyes V. Cloyes 282 Clute V. Frazier 360 Coates V. Bank 638 Coates V. Davis 67 Coates V. Doran 637 Coats V. Robinson 64 Cobb V. Arnold ^. 292 Cobb V. Duke 68, 317 Cobbey v. Buchanan 46 Coburn v. Omega Lodge, A. F. & A. M 90 Coburn v. Webb 250 Cobleskill First Nat. Bank v. Em- mett 392 Coch V. Lay 283 Cochran v. Atchison 426, 435 Cochran v. Davis 72 Cochran v. Duffy 248 Cochran v. Nebeker 176 Cock V. Fellows 318 Cocke V. Bank of Tennessee 491 Cocke V. Branch Bank of Mobile. 113 120 Coddington v. Bay 289, 309 Coddington v. Davis 486, 523 525, 610 Coe v. 'Smith 286 Coffin V. Loring 478 Coffin V. Spencer 221 Coffman v. Ken tuck v Bank .... 643 Coffman v. Campbell 599, 606 Coffman v. Wilson 260, 386 Coggil V. American Exch. Bank.. 233 Cogtrill V. Am. Express Bank 408 Coghlan v. S. C. R. Co 646 Cohea v. Hunt 461 Cohn V. Hussen 281 XXXVIU Table of Cases Cited. PAGE. Cohn V. Prater 354 Cok V. Werman 373 Colbum V. Averill 267 Colburn v. Chattanooga K. Co. . . 154 Colburn v. Elwell 343 Colby V. Bunker 265 Colby V. Parker 305, 397 Cole V. Cushing 328 Cole V. Dalton 188, 5'80 Cole V. Merchants' Bank of Water- town 340 Cole V. Saulpaugh 310, 311 Cole V. Seeley 47 Cole V. Smith 429 Cole V. Wintereost 465 Cole V. Jessup 449, 495 Colehan v. Cooke 218 Coleman v. Carpenter 479, 503 Coleman v. McKinney 375 Colgate V. Buckingham 212 CoUender Co. v. Boutell 95 Colleridge v. Farquharson 294 Collins V. Allen 363 Collins V. Bank of Titusville ... 491 Collins V. Bradbury 181, 237 Collins V. Buckeye iState Ins. Co. 84 94, 97, 99 Collins V. Driscoll 241, 248 Collins V. Gilbert 392, 397 Collins V. Johnson 102, 145 Collins V. Martin 307 Collins V. Rudolph 64 Collins Iron Co. v. Burkam 300 CoUis V. Emet 232 Colonial & U. S. Mtge. Co. v. Bradley 69 Colorado Nat. Bank v. Boettcher. 637 Colson V. Arnot 558, 567 Columbus Ins. & Bank. Co. v. First Nat. Bank 23 Comb's Case 80 Comings v. Leedy 384 Commerce Bank v. Barnero. . 81, 168 Commerce Bank v. Fuqua 207 Commercial Bank v. Barksdale . 450 465, 615 Commercial Bank v. Burgoyn . 394 Commercial Bank v. Cunning- ham 551 Commercial Bank v. First Nat. Bank 630 Commercial Bank v. Henninger . . 482 Commercial Bank v. Hughes . . . 169 Commercial Bank v. St. Croix Mfg. Co 135, 385, 452 Commercial Bank v. Union Bank. 477 530 Commercial Bank of Buffalo v. Warren 81, 570 Commercial Bank of Kentucky v. Varnura 12, 450, 616 PAGE. Commercial Bank of Lexington v. Wood 548 Commercial Bank of New Orleans V. Newport Mfg. Co 133 Commercial Bank of Salina v. Crenshaw 201, 220 Commercial Nat. Bank v. Con- sumers' Brewing Co 181 Commissioners v. Clark 397 Commonwealth v. Butteriek, 16, 225 226, 581 Commonwealth v. Foster 566 Commonwealth v. Hide 566 Commonwealth v. Paulus 566 Commonwealth v. Pittsburgh . . 157 Commonwealth Ins. Co. v. Whit- ney 26, 171, 172 Comparree v. Brockway 413 Compton V. Oilman 472 Compton V. Patterson 539 Comstock V. Draper 366 Comstock V. Hannah 369, 373 Conable v. Keeney 559 Conable v. Smith 558 Conant v. Johnson 394 Conaway v. Odbert 554 Concord v. Robinson 155 Condon v. Pearce 327, 426 Congregational Soc. v. Perry. . . 402 Conine v. Junction & B. E. Co. . . 244 Conklin v. Ogborn 63, 129 Conkling v. Underbill 380 Conklin v. Vail 299 Conkling v. Doul 64 Conmey v. Macfarlane 303 Conn V. Cans 441 Conn V. Thornton 219 Connecticut Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Cleveland 37 Conner v. Martin 67 Connerly v. Planters & Mer- chants' Ins. Co 311, 466 Connersville v. Connersville Hy- draulic Co 156 Connor v. Root 282 Conover v. Stillwell 179 Conrad, In re 642 Conrad v. Buck isr Conrad v. Lane 45 Conrad v. Le Blane 384 Conrad v. Williams 295 Consalus, Matter of 78 Continental Nat. Bank v. Crosby. 310 Continental Nat. Bank v. Mc- Gloeh 181 Continental Nat. Bank v. Wells. 237 Converse v. Cook 434 Cook V. Clark 435 Cook V. Cockrell 431 Cook V, Crawford 14 Table of Cases Cited. XXXIX PAGE. Cook .V. Darling 477 Cook V. Deaton 45 Cook V. Farker 516 Cook V. Helms 397 Cook V. Litchfield 499, 501, 503 647, 648 Cook v. Pomeroy 525 Cook V. Eetiick 479 Cook V. Satterlee. . 195, 197, 198, 241 Cook V. Shipman 296 Cook V. Southwick 343 Cooke V. Horn 201 Cooke v. Husbands 64 Cooke V. SUte Nat. Bank.. 634, 635 Cooke V. United States 261 Cooley V. Esteban 84 Coolidge V. Payson 37, 600 Coolidge V. Euggles 17, 176 Coolidge V. Wiggin 436 Coolridge v. Euggles 179 Coon V. Pruden 487 Cooper V. Bailey 320, 321, 339 Cooper V. Brewster 176 Cooper V. Gibbs 550 Cooper V. Meyer 408 Cooper V. Santford 642 Coquillard v. Bearss 296 Cope V. Daniel 327, 643 Coppell V. Phillipson 307 Copp V. McDougall 442 Costello V. Crowell 180 Coster V. Merritt 639 Coster V. Thomasoti 491, 492 Corbett v. Woodward . . ....... 550 Corbett v. Miller 313 Corbitt V. Stonemetz 179 Corbyn v. Broekmyer 415 Corcoran v. Powers 298 Corcoran v. Snow Cattle Co.... 139 Corey v. Hunter 537 Corgan v. Frew 263 Corlies v. Howe 272 Cornell v. Hichens 136 Cornell v. Moulton 210 Cornett v. Hafer 416, 506 Corning v. Burden 286 Cornthwaite v. Bank 73 Corn well v. Pumphrey 273 Corser v. Craig 578 Corser v. Paul . . . 145, 167, 570, 571 Cortelyou v. Maben 596 Cortland Wagon Co. v. Lynch, 84, 86 Cota V. Buck 180, 216, 220 Cottage 'Street M. E. Church v. Kendall 284 Cottam V. Smith 108 Cothran v. Collins 400, 534, 535 Gotten V. Bradley 554 Cottrell V. Watkins... 313, 363, 555 Couch V. First Nat. Batik 470 Coulter V. Eichmond 267, 413 PAGE. County Nat. Bank v. Tradesmen's Nat. Bank 636 County of Beaver v. Armstrong. 38 244 Courcamp v. Weber 563 Courtney v. Doyle 242, 302 Courtney v. Hogan 100 Courtois V. Carpenter 641 Cover V. Myers 394, 430 Covin V. Hill 33 Cowan V. Hallack 242 Cowee V. Cornell 278, 286 Cowie V. Stirling 230 Cowing V. Altman ... 241, 255, 362 366 Cowing V. Cloud 207 Cowles V. MeVickar 428 Cowperthwaite v. 'Sheffield 496 Cowton V. Wiekersham 409 Cox V. Adams 261 Cox V. Beltzhoover 229 Cox v. Cayan 237 Cox V. National Bank 454, 605 Cox V. Sloan 293 Cox V. Tennessee Bank 405 Coye V. Palmer 27, 554 Coyle V. Campbell 299 Coyle V. Satterwhite 189 Craft V. Bunster 181, 237 Craft V. Fleming 334 Craft V. South Boston E. Co. . . 139 Cragin v. Fowler 274 Cragin v. Lowell 97 Craig V. Vieksbnrg 37 Craighead v. Petersen 81, 167 Crain v. Colwell 503, 519 Cram v. Hendricks 298, 431 Cramer v. Willets 363 Cramlington v. Evans 477 Crampton v. Perkins 369 Crandell v. Vickery 374 Crane v. Trndeau 428, 433 Cravens v. Gillilan 166, 570 Crawford v. Beard 279 Crawford v. Branch Bank of Mo- bile 499, 644 Crawford v. Cully 187 Crawford v. Eilly 444 Crawford v. Johnson 365 Crawford v. Stirling 119 Crawford v. Storms 298 Crawford v. West Side Bank... 562 Creamer v. Perry 520, 523, 529 Creasy v. Gray 208 Credit Co. v. Howe Machine Co. 138 410 Creech v. Byron 363 Creekmore v. Chitwood 299 Creteau v. Foote & Thome Glass Co 445 xl Table of Cases Cited. PAGE. Creveling v. Bloomsburg Nat. Bank 637 Crenshaw v. Collier 69 Crenshaw v. McKiernan 479 Cribbs v. Adams 450, 577 Crider v. Shelby 219 Crim V. Starkweather 447 Criaty v. Campau 376 Crocker v. Colwell 97 Crocker v. Getchill 405 Croker v. State 191 Crombie v. McGrath 290 Cromer v. Piatt 495 Cromwell v. Coimty of Sac 118 Cronise v. Kellogg 551 Crosby v. Grant 360 Crosby v. Lane 313 Crosby v. Rltchey 394 Crosby v. Roub 319, 321, 322 Crossmore v. Page 201 Crosthwait v. Meisner 391 Crosthwaite v. Ross 113, 114 Croswell v. Labree 557, 565 Crouch V. Crgdit Foneier 3, 358 Crouch V. Hall 647 Croughton v. Forrest 120 Crowder v. Reed 290, 297 Crowell V. Wing 538 Crowley v. Barry . . 462, 513, 612 Crozier v. Kirker 108 Crutcher v. Bank of Kentucky. . 554 Crutehfield v. Easton 321 Cruger v. Armstrong 465 Crump V. Berdan 200 Crumrine v. Crumrine 165 Culbertson v. Nelson 198, 202 Culter V. Reynolds 477, 628 Culver V. Leavy 432 Culver V. Marks 464, 525 Culver V. Reno Real Est. Co 136 Cumberland Bank v. Hann 362 Cumberland Bank v. Maybery. . . 242 Cuming v. Roderick 515 Cummings v. Freeman 18, 25 173, 222 Cimimings v. Gassett 169 CUmmings v. Henry 61 Cummings v. Herrick 432 Cummings v. Hummer 607 Cummings v. Kent 404, 405 Cummings v. Leedy 285 Cummings v. Little 314, 360, 366 Cummings v. Mead 288, 305 Cummings v. Morris 362 Cumpston v. M'Nair 104 Cunningham, In re 81 Cunningham v. Bragg 129 Cunningham v. Cunningham .... 290 Cunningham v. Uans 208 Cunningham v. Smithson 127 PAGE. Cunningham v. Wardwell ... 16, 225 581 Cupp V. Campbell 65 Curie V. Beers 187, 580 Curran v. Witter 27, 211 Currie v. Miaa 277 Currier v. Clark 290 Currier v. Fellows 416 Currier v. Lockwood... 25, 172, 173 Curry v. Davis 292 Curry v. St. John Plow Co 55 Curry v. White 129 Curtin v. Patton 53 Curtis V. Brooks 543 Curtis V. Hall 61 Curtis V. Horn 216 Curtis V. Leavitt 134, 298 Curtis V. Sprague 234, 318, 519 Curtiss V. Martin 391, 521 Cushman v. Bailey 105 Cushman v. De Mallie 538 Cushman v. Haines 199 Cushman v. Marshall 428 Cushman v. Welsh 239 Cussen v. Brandt 329 Cuthbert v. Haley 381 Cutter V. Cook 365 Cutter V. Reynolds 32 Cuyler v. Cuyler 542 Cuyler v. Nellis 512, 514 Cuyler v. Stevens 501 D. Dabney v. Stidger ■ 491 Daggett V. Daggett 26, 171, 173 Daily v. Brennan 300 Daily v. Jessup 292 Dakin v. Graves 614 Dale V. Gear 335, 429 Dallas V. Heard 64 Dalrymple v. Hillenbrand. . . 395, 426 Dalrymple v. Wyker 303 Dalton City Co. v. Haddock 477 Daly V. New Jersey Steel & Iron Co 31 Damon v. De Bar 538 Dana v. City of San Francisco.. 188 Dana v. Combs 55 Dana v. Sawyer 451 Dana v. Third Nat. Bank 637 Dane v. Kirkwall 56 Daniel v. Downing 613 Daniel v. McRae 436 Daniels v. Meinhard 323 Darby v. Cabanne 61 Darling v. March.. 119, 121, 129, 131 Darrow v. Rippey 564 Darst v. Backus 380 Darst V. Broekway 285 Dart V. Sherwood 401 Darwin v. Moore 66 Table of Cases Cited. xli PAGE. Daskam v. Ullman . . v. .-. . . .■ 420 Daugherty v. Eastbum 391 Dater v. Simon 251 Davenport v. Eunlett 124 Davenport v. Stone 145 David V. Merchants' Nat. Bank.. 376 David V. Williamsburgh City Fire Ins. Co 164 Davidson v. Lanier 250, 299 Davidson v. Peticoals 428 Davidson v. Powell 319 Davidson v. Stuart 69 Davies v. Jenkins 64 Davies v. Wilkinson 197 Davis V. Baker 407 Davis V. Baron 417 Davis V. Barrington 402 Davis V. Bartlett 395 Davis V. Bly 413 Davis V. Bradley 365 Davis V. Brown 335 Davis V. Building Union 376 Davis V. Caldwell 46 Davis V. Davis 298 Davis and Desauque, Estate of.. 132 Davis V. Dudley 54 Davis V. England 90, 96 Davis v. Eppler 468 Davis V. French 73 Davis V. Garr 228 Davis V. Hanly 509 Davis V. Henderson 98 Davis V. Holm 221 Davis V. Johnson 349 Davis V. Lane 350 Davis V. Lee 250 Davis V. McCready 214, 215, 386 Davis V. McVickers 280 Davis V. Miller 520 Davis V. Morgan 327 Davis V. Neligh 362 Davis V. Noll 363, 364 Davis V. Old Colony E. Co 136 Davis V. Perriue 553 Davis V. Poland 442 Davis V. Randall 405 Davis V. Rittenhouse & Embree Co 594 Davis V. Rockingham Investment Co 385 Davis V. Seeley 296, 372 Davis Sewing Machine Co. v. Best. 360 Davis V. Stevens 634 Davis V. Tarver 58 Davis V. Wilkinson 198 Davy. V. Kelley 387 Dawkes v. De Lorane 183 Dawkese v. Earl of Deloraine. . . 186 Dawson v. Cotton 88, 90 Day V. Ramsdell 91 Day V. Eidgway 525 PAGE. Day V. Thompson 405 Dayton v. Tillorton 334 Dayton v. Tillotson 421 Dayton v. Trull 444 Dean v. Carruth 242, 278, 302 Dean v. Duffield 77 Dean v. Hewitt 391 Dean v. Justices Munic. Ct 543 Deon V. Newhall 541 Dean v. Richmond 64 Dearborn v. Bowman 287 Deardorf v. Thacher 117 De Barry v. Withers 533 Decatur Bank v. Hodges. . . . 452, 611 Decatur Bank v. Spence 250, 384 Decell V. Lawrence 47 Decorah First Nat. Bank v. Laughlin 563 Dedham Nat. Bank v. Everett Nat. Bank 425 Deel V. Berry 441 Deering v. Boyle 64 Defee v. Smith 184 De Forrest v. Frary . . . 178, 179, J53 De Haas v. Roberts 200 Dehers v. Harriott 15 Deininger v. Miller ■ 503 Deitz V. Eegnier 108 De La Courtier v. Bellamy 265 Delahay v. Clement 166 De Land v. Dixon Nat. Bank. ... 167 Delano v. Bartlett 304 Delano v. Jacoby 535 Delaware Bank v. Jarvis. 419, 421, 423 Delaware County Trust, etc., Co. V. Haser 548 Delsman v. Friedlander 413 De Mott V. Starkey 362 Dempsey v. Chambers 80 Dempsey v. Harm 178 Dennett v. Dennett 56 Dennett v. Goodwin 196 Dennett v. Wyman 367 Dennie v. Walker 469 Dennis v. Table Mt. Water Co... 226 444 Dennison v. Austin 146 Denniston v. Bacon 273 Denniston v. Cook 298 Denniston v. Stewart 450, 611 Denny v. Palmer 466, 508 Densmore v. Duncan 558 Denton v. Lytle 436 Depau v. Brown 408, 573 Depauw v. Bank of Salem 443 Derry Bank v. Baldwin 402 Desha v. Eobinson 274 Deshler v. Hodges 94 Des Moines Gas Co. v. West 133 Dessaint v. Filing 391 Detwiler v. Bish 377 xlii Table of Cases Cited. PAOB. De Vaughn v. Hangabook ... 15, 225 Beveling v. Ferris 522 Devendorf v. West Virginia Oil and Oil Land Co 167 Deveries v. Shumate. . . 255, 256, 259 Devey v. Bell 539 Devin v. Scott 61 Devlin v. Brady 296, 379 Devlin v. Clark 395 De Voss V. City of Richmond. . . . 156 Dewees v. Bluntzer 560 Deweese v. Muff 330 Dewey v. Bowman 264 Dewey v. Toledo, etc., R. Co 136 Dewitt County Nat. Bank v. Nixon 416 De Witt V. Perkins 306 De Witt V. Walton 88, 97 De Zeng v. Fyfe 313 Diamond v. Harris 366 Dickerson v. Burke 292, 400 Dickerson v. Turner 519 Dickens v. Beal 12 Dickey v. Harmon 578 Dickins v. Beal 464, 465, 507 516, 526, 601 Dickins v. Hall 285 Dickinson v. Coates 637 Dickinson v. Edwards 642 Dickinson v. Hall 272, 273 Dickinson v. Valpy 113, 134 Dickson v. Clayville 320 Dickson v. Cunningham 322 Dietrich v. Bayhi 207 Dietrich v. Mitchell 261 Dietz V. City Nat. Bank 167 Dietz V. Harder 563 Diffenderfer v. Scott 286 Dill V. Bowen 55 Dill V. White 267 Dillenbeek v. Dygert 314, 534 Dillman v. Carlin 638 Dillon V. Burnham 45, 46 Dinnigan v. Stevens 647 Dinsmore v. Duncan . . 189, 196, 199 240, 244 Ditch V. Western Nat Bank of Baltimore 330 Dixon v. Dixon 289, 386 Dixon, In re 542 Dixon V. Nuttal 185 Dob v. Halsey 105, 116, 123, 124 Dockray v. Dunn 281, 441 Doe V. Callow 536 Dodd V. Bishop 129 Dodd V. Denny 211 Dodds V. Wilson 56 Dodson V. Taylor 491, 499 Dodge V. Emerson 198 Dodge V. Haskell 560 Dodge V. Oatis 274 PAGE. Dodge V. Pond 283 Doherty v. Perry 185 Dolittle V. Ferry 335 Doll V. Hollenback 322 DoUfus V. Frosch 464 DoUner v. Snow 66 Dolph V. Rice 629 Domingo v. Getman 374 Donar v. Ijutzens 393 Donegan v. Wood 12, 450 Donley v. Camp 445 Donnell v. Lewis Co 133 Donnell v. Lewis County Sav. Bank 493 Donnigan v. Wood 612 Donohoe v. Meeker 426 Donovan v. Fox 38& Dooley v. Virginia Fire & Marine Ins. Co 532 Doom V. Sherwin 334, 430 Doremus v. Burton 475 Dorsey v. Wolff 207, 216 Doty V. Bates 124 Doty V. Wilson 540 Doubleday v. Kress . . . 401, 449, 535 Dougall V. Cowles 225, 581, 594 Dougherty v. Hunter : 144 Dougherty v. Seymour 294 Dougherty v. Western Bank 441 Douglas v. Bank of Commerce . . . 647 Douglas v. Scott 250 Douglas V. Waddle 436 Douglass V. White 546 Dow V. Clark 579 Dow V. Moore 108 Dow V. Phillips 108 Dow V. Rowell 428 Dow V. Russell 641 Dow V. Spenny 81, 166 Dowden v. Cryder 371 Dowe V. Sehutt 38& Downer v. Chesbrough 647 Downer v. Read 140 Downer v. Remer 512 Downing v. Backenstoes .... 18, 222 Downing v. Gibson 365 Dow's Exr. V. Spenny'a Exr 570 Dows V. Greene 34 Dows V. McMichael 400 Dows V. Rush 33 Drake v. Flewellen 90 Drake v. Found Treasure Min. Co. 642 Drake v. Market 'Z7 Drake v. Markle 17, 178- Drake v. Rogers 248 Draper v. Bissell 132 Draper v. Chase Mfg. Co 417 Draper v. Clemens 453 Draper v. Cowles 379 Draper v. Pattini 162 Draper v. Rice 535 Table of Cases Cited. xliii PAGE. Draper v. Snow 246 Draper v. Massachusetts Steam Heating Co • 85 Draper v. Wood 557, 563 Draton v. Dale 410 Drayton v. Dale 51 Dreilllng v. First Nat. Bank 307 Drennan v. Douglas 297 Dressen v. Missouri, etc., E. Const. Co 374 Drew V. Jacocks 320 Drew V. Towle 274 Drexel v. Pusey 416 Drexler v. MeG-lynn 491, 497 Driggs V. Driggs 470, 524 Driggs V. Rockwell 363 Drinkwater v. Tebbets 526 Drovers' Nat. Bank v. Anglo- American Packing Co 635 Drovers' Nat. Bank v. Blue. 306, 394 Drovers' Nat. Bank v. Packing Co 635 Drum V. Benton 257 Duble V. Cincinnati & C. R. Co. . 548 Dubois V. Mason 224 Du Bois V. Wheddon 50 Ducell V. Lewenthal 46 Dudley v. Stiles 538 Duffield V. Johnston. 178, 188, 580, 607 Dufford V. Smith 79 Dugan V. United States 346 Dull V. Bricker 594 Dulty V. Brownfield 403 Dumont v. Williamson .... 334, 421 Duncan v. Berlin 29 Duncan v. City of LouisvUle . . . . 181 216, 237 Duncan v. Clark 115 Duncan v. Course 12 Duncan v. Gilbert 311 Duncan v. Lowndes 119 Duncan v. McAffee 244 Duncan v. McCidlough 468 Duncan v. Maryland Sav. Inst.. 18 Duncan v. Scott 379 Dundas v. Bowler 647, 649 Dunham v. Clogg 252 Dunham v. Gilbert 310 Dunham v. Peterson... 289, 307, 319 Dunkin v. Cranston 582 Dunlop V. Gregory 295 Dunn V. Devlin 613 Dunn V. Hornbeck 536 Dunn V. O'Keefe 530 Dunn V. Parsons 314 Dunn V. Sparks 436, 437 Dunn V. Weston 310, 311, 312 Dunne v. Deery 72, 73 Dunnigan v. Stevens 471, 524 Dupre V. Richard 428 PAGE. Duquoin First Nat. Bank v. Keith 638 Durgin v. Bartol 224 Durham v. Price 519, 522 Durkee v. Conklin 288, 594 Durland v. Pitcairn 302 Durnall v. McElroy 341 Durnford v. Gross 69 Durrum v. Hendrick 465 Durwent v. Tuttle 280 Duryee v. Dennison 519 Dusenbery v. Albright 317 Dusenbury v. Ellis 87 Dutchess County Ins. Co. v. Hatchfield 222 Dutton v. Marsh 84 Duval V. Farmers' Bank 552 Duvial V. Wood 127 Duvall V. Farmers' Bank 523 Dwight V. Lenz 537 Dwinel v. Stone 105 Dye V. Scott 525 Dyer v. Covington Township 188 Dyer v. Homer 272, 273, 354 Dykemau v. Northbridge 306 Dykman v. Northridge 616 Dykers v. Leather Manufacturers' Bank 176 E. Eagan v. Eagan 285 Eager v. Brown 504 Eagle V. Kohn 361, 379 Eagle Bank v. Chapin 506 Eagle Bank v. Hathaway... 488, 496 497, 507 Eames v. Crosier 393, 395 Earl V. Page 285 Earl V. Peck 278, 286 Earle v. Reed 48 Earle v. Robinson 259 Earley v. Wilkinson 90, 94 Early v. MeCart 379, 380, 394 Early v. Reed 121, 286 Earnest v. Moline Power Co 280 Eark v. Richardson 366 Easou V. Isbell 454 Eason v. Mackey 132 East Birmingham Land Co. v. Dennis 39 Easter v. Farmers' Nat. Banlc. . 129 132 Easterly v. Barber 430, 432, 434 Eastman v. Cooper 120 Eastman v. Fifleld 441 Eastman v. Plumer 533 Eastman v. Shaw 259 Eastman v. Turman 442 East of England Banking Co., In re 473 xliv Table of Cases Cited. PAGE. Easton v. Blanchard 368 Easton v. Easton 292 East River Bank v. Butter- worth 310, 313 Eaton V. Gary 346 Eaton V. Hill 46 Eaton V. Libbey 286 Eaton V. McMahon 387, 514 Eaton V. Melius 334 Eaton V. Thayer 132 Eaton E. R. Co. v. Hunt 441 Eecles v. Ballard 428 Eckel V. Murphy 302 Eeker v. First Nat. Bank 145 Eekert v. Louis 558 Eckford v. Hogan 349 Eckstein v. Frank 46 Eddy V. Capron 296 Edelen v. White 432 Edgar v. Greer 479 Edgeombe v. Rodd 297 Edgerly v. Lawson 414, 415 Edgerton v. Edgerton 242 Edie V. East India Co 344 Edis V. Bury 266 Edison Gen. Elee. Co. v. Zebley.. 417 Edleman v. Byers 374 Edmunds v. Bushell 81 Edmunds v. Mister 53 Edmunds v. Rose 434 Edney v. Willis 363 Edson V. Fuller 594, 601 Edson V. Jacobs 489 Edwards v. Bedford Chair Co. . . 549 Edwards v. Campbell 540 Edwards v. Parks 400, 534 Edwards v. Tandy 519, 521 Edwards v. Thomas 82 Eichelberger v. Old Nat. Bank.. 252 375 Eggleston v. Rumble 298 Ehriehs v. De Mill 188, 580 Eisenlord v. Snyder 64 Elder v. Rouse 25 Eldredge v. Chacon 545 Eldridge v. Rogers 502 Ellen V. East India Co 327 Ellicott V. Chamberlain 296 Elliot V. Abbot 145 Elliott V. Dudley 388 Elliott Bank v. Westerr.. etc.. R. Co 136 Ellis V. Commercial Bank 507 Ellis V. Ohio Ins. & Trust Co 574 Ellis V. Seeor 256 Ellison V. CoUingridge.. 15, 174, 578 Ellison V. McCahill 188 Ellsworth V. Fogg 400 Ellsworth V. Pomeroy 105 Elminger v. Drew 274 PAGE. Elmira Iron & Steel Rolling Co. V. Harris 130 Elwell V. Chamberlain 281 Elwell V. Dodge 341 Elwell V. Puget Sound & C. R. Co 141 Ely V. Clute 267 Emanuel v. White 392, 646 Emerson v. Burns 397 Emerson v. Opps 559 Emerson v. Providence Hat Mfg. Co 88 Emery v. Estes 304 Emery v. Hobson 470, 518 Emery v. Hoyt 56 Emery v. Irving Nat. Bank 34 Emery v. Mariaville 156 Emery v. Vinall 242 Emily v. Lye 127 Emmons v. Newman 105 Emmons v. Weatfield Bank 105 Emonds v. Meeker 249 Engler v. Ellis 641 Englethorn v. Reitlinger 259 English v. Young 61 English-American L. & T. Co. v. Hiers 368 Epler V. Funk 334 Erie Boot & Shoe Co. v. Eiehen- laub 393 Ernst V. Steckman 216, 220 Ewing V. Wrightman 274 Erwin v. Downs.. 388, 426, 462, 572 Erwin v. Lynn 434 Erwin v. Saunders 387 Esby V. Bank 408 Espy V. Nat. Bank 633 Essenlow v. Dillenbaek 212 Essex County v. Edmands 415 Essex County Bank v. Russell . . . 309 Esterbrook v. Boyle 392 Estes V. Tower 451, 473 Esty V. Snyder 359 Ethelridge v. Ladd 473 Etheridge v. Ladd 458, 459 Etheridge v. Vernoy .,. . 323 Etting V. Schuylkill Bank 510 Etz V. Place 562 Eureka Co. v. Edwards 55 Evans v. Bridge 586 Evans v. Cramlington 331 Evans v. Foreman 559 Evans v. Gee 326, 327 Evans v. Partin 564 Evans v. St. John 454 Evans v. Wells 115 Evans v. Williamson 274 Evansville v. Dennett 157 Everett v. Cox 105 Everett v. Tidball 234, 318 Everett y. United States 145> Table of Cases Cited. xlv PAGE. Everett v. Vandryes... 326, 645, 647 ETersole v. Maul 344, 364 Everson v. Carpenter 47 Evertsen v. National Bank 38 Exchajige Bank v. Hubbard .... 600 Exchange Bank v. Johnson 536 Exchange Bank v. Monteath .... 385 Exchange Bank v. Eice 579, 594 600, b04 Exchange Bank v. Sutton Bank . . 29 Exchange Bank of Wheeling v. Sutton Bank 212, 637 Exchange Nat. Bank v. Bank of Little Rock 251 Exchange Nat. Bank v. Capps . . . 402 Exchange Nat. Bank v. Plate . . 376 P. Pair V. Citizens' State Bank. . . . 125 Pair V. Peck 444 Fairchild v. Brown 364 Pairehild v. Ogdeuaburgh, etc., Ey. Co 15, 16, 225, 529 Fairley v. Roeh 42, 626 Pairthorne v. Garden 261 Paith V. Richmond 127 Pake V. Smith 355, 419 Paler v. Jordan 108 Palk V. Moebs 92, 99 Pall V. Dial 285 Pallowa V. Taylor 297 Pall River Nat. Banlt v. Buffing- ton 426 Pall River Union Bank v. Wil- lard 457, 587 Famous Shoe & Clothing Co. v. Crosswhite 392 Pancourt v. Thorne 197 Panning v. Farmers & Merchants' Bank 252 Panning v. Russell 256 Panshaw v. Peet 605 Parbcr v. National Forge Co 281 Paris V. King 380 Parmer v. Gardner 346 Parmer v. Rand 510, 524 Parmer v. Sewall 525 Farmers' Bank v. Blair 546 Farmers' Bank v. Dunbar 633 Farmers' liank v. Garten 250 Farmers' Bank v. Gilpen 552 Farmers' Bank v. Maxwell.. 144, 536 Farmers' Bank v. Vail 511 Farmers' Bank of Bridgeport v. Vail 496, 497 Farmers' Bank of Mercersburg v. Crowell 237 Farmers' Bank of Missouri v. Bayliss 127 PAGE. Farmers' Bank of Virginia v. Gun- nell 505 Farmers' Bank & Trust Co. v. Newland 638 Farmers & Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Moxen 394 Farmers & Citizens' Bank v. Sher- man 314 Farmers' Co-op. T. Co. v. Floyd. . 74 Farmers' Exchange Bank v. Al- tura Gold Mill & Mining Co. . 525 Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Olson 560 Farmers & Mechanics' Bank v. Butchers & Drovers' Bank .. 634 635 Farmers & Mechanics' Bank of Grand Rapids v. Butler 378 Farmers & Mechanics' Bank v. Colby 90 Farmers & Mechanics' Bank v. Day 339 Farmers & Mechanics' Bank v. Rathbone 312 Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Sutton Mfg. Co 200, 207 Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Thomas.. 25 Farmers' Trust Co. v. Schenuit . . 320 Farmington Sav. Bank v. Buzzell. 81 Parmington Sav. Bank v. Fall.. 341 i^arnum v. Powle. . 470, 475, 478, 479 Farnaworth v. Allen 451 Parnsworth v. Mullen 455 Parnsworth v. Rowe 163 Parr v. Rickar 428 Parrar v. Gilman 102, 145 Parrell v. Lovett 372, 376 Parrell v. National, etc., Bank 92 Farrington v. Park Bank . . 362, 364 365 Farris v. Wells 348 Parson v. Grandy 380, 381 Parwell v. Curtis 631 Farwell v. Ensign 436, 437 Parwell v. Meyer 327 Passin v. Hubbard 336, 428, 489 Faulkner v. Faulkner 415 Faut V. Cathcart 47, 51 Favorite v. Lord 365 Pawcett v. Powell 394 Pawaett v. National Life Ins. Co. 347 Pay V. Burditt 56 Pay & Co. V. Jenks & Co 415 Pay V. Pay 300 Pay V. Smith 557 Payette County Sav. Bank v. Steflfes 376 Fayle v. Bird 453 Payles v. National Ins. Co 144 Peagan v. Cureton 302 Pecel v. Guinault 57 xlvi Table of Cases Cited. PAGE. Feeter v. Weber 292 Feller v. Penrod 273 Fello-ws V. Kress 540 Fellows V. Longyor 371 Fellows V. Wyman 131 Fells Point Sav. Inst. V. Weedon. . 27 Fenn v. Dugdale 553 Fentam v. Pocock 551 Fenton v. White 47 Ferguson v. Bobo 45 Ferguson v. Thacher 119, 124 Ferner v. Williams 454 Fernon v. Farmer 221 Ferris v. Bond 166 Ferriss v. Tavel 185 Fesenmayer v. Adcock 26, 172 Fessenden v. Summers 417 Fessenden v. Taft 641. Feurt V. Brown 108 Fidelity Loan & Trust Co. v. Hogan 363 Fields V. Mallett 456 Fielder v. Marshall 266 Field V. McKesson 367 Field V. Montlinau 38 Field V. Niekerson 448, 471, 521 Fifth Ward Sav. Bank v. First Nat. Bank 133 Filbrick v. Ballett 359 Filomath College v. Hartless 283 Finch V. Skilton 441 Findlay v. Potts 208 Findley v. Cowles 290, 541 Fink V. Cox 281, 282 Finney v. Shirley 18, 25 Firemen's Ins. Co. v. Bennett... 119 Firman v. Blood 416 First Nat. Bank fv. Albertson. . . 66 First Nat. Bank v. Alexander . . 632 First Nat. Bank v. Allers 575 First Nat. Bank v. Alton 176 First Nat. Bank v. American Ex- change Bank 376 First Nat. Bank v. Anderson . . 386 First Nat. Bank v. Babcock . . . 445 First Nat. Bank v. Bensley 601 First Nat. Bank v. Bentley 380 First Nat. Bank v. Binum 354 First Nat. Bank v. Buckhannon Bank 630 First Nat. Bank v. Bynum, 202, 208 216, 388 First Nat. Bank v. Carpenter . . 119 First Nat. Bank v. Chilsoli 537 First Nat. Bank v. Clark. . 599, 637 First Nat. Bank v. Compo. Board Co 386 First Nat. Bank v. Crittenden . . 617 First Nat. Bank v. Deal 376 First Nat. Bank v. Owen 405 First Nat. Bank v. Drew 356 PAGE. First Nat. Bank v. Elliott .... 392 First Nat. Bank v. Ells 131 First Nat. Bank v. Falkenhan . . 525 First Nat. Bank v. Farmers & Merchants' Bank 426 First Nat. Bank v. Farneman. . . 503 509 First Nat. Bank v. Finck 539 First Nat. Bank v. Gay 87, 208 First Nat. Bank v. Gillilan ... 402 First Nat. Bank v. Grant 313 First Nat. Bank v. Green 393 First Nat. Bank v. Greenville Nat. Bank 27, 189 First Nat. Bank v. Hall. . . 340, 536 First Nat. Bank v. Hatch 501 First Nat. Bank v. Henry.. 294, 350 First Nat. Bank v. Hogan 141 First Nat. Bank v. Holan 394 First Nat. Bank v. Howe 299 First Nat. Bank v. Houseknecht, 376 First Nat. Bank v. Johns 378 First Nat. Bank v. Larsen. . 176, 20S First Nat. Bank v. Laughlin ... 208 First Nat. Bank v. Leach 635 First Nat. Bank v. Ledbetter . . 380 First Nat. Bank v. Lineberger . . 548 First Nat. Bank v. Lockstitch Fence Co 648 First Nat. Bank v. Marshall ... 415 First Nat. Bank v. Maxfield ... 533 First Nat. Bank v. McMiehael. . 633 First Nat. Bank v. Morgan. 109, 110 First Nat. Bank v. National City Bank 575 First Nat. Bank v. Nelson.. 29, 306 First Nat. Bank v. Northwestern Nat. Bank 573, 575 First Nat. Bank v. Peck 285 First Nat. Bank v. Price 211 First Nat. Bank v. Bicker 408 First Nat. Bank v. Ruhl 393 First Nat. Bank v. Bush School Dist 188 First Nat. Bank v. Ryerson 466 First Nat. Bank v. Security Nat. Bank 362, 364 First Nat. Bank v. Scott County Comrs 360 First Nat. Bank v. Schuyler ... 410 First Nat. Bank v. Skeen 216 First Nat. Bank v. Slaughter. . . 207 237, 240 First Nat. Bank v. Slette 203 First Nat. Bank v. Smith 495 First Nat. Bank v. Sproul 392 First Nat. Bank v. Stanley. 378, 389 First Nat. Bank v. Strang 255 First Nat. Bank v. Strauss 359 First Nat. Bank v. Wallis 92 Table of Cases Cited. xlvii PAGE. Pirst Nat. Bank v. White 539 First Nat. Bank of Angelica v. Hall 101 First Nat. Bank of Buffalo v. Wood 314 First Nat. Bank of Cincinnati v. Coates 33 First Nat. Bank of Danvers v. First Nat. Bank of Salem 574 First Nat. Bank of Decatur v. Johnston 251 First Nat. Bank of Hastings v. McAllister 478 First Nat. Bank of Mankato v. Grignou 108 First Nat. Bank of Meadville v. Fourth Nat. Bank of New York 538 First Nat. Bank of Portland v. Schuyler 311 First Nat. Bank of Quiucy t. Ricker 574 First Nat. Bank of Rochester v. Bentley 288 First Nat. Bank of Trenton v. Gay 570 Firth V. Thrush 489, 504 Fish V. Jackson 511 JTisher v. Fisher 541 Fisher v. Leland 364, 369 Fisher v. Leslie 172, 173 Fisher v. Meekwith 407 Fisher v. Price 471, 524 Fisher v. Salmon 273 Fisher v. State Bank 480, 613 Fisk V. McNeal 563 Fisk V. Morse 501 Fisk V. Miller 417 Fisk V. Witt 187 Fitch V. Citizens' Nat. Bank ... 525 Fitch V. Jones 605 Fitch V. Redding 272, 464 Fitchburg Bank v. Perley 510 Fitzgerald v. Barker 391, 392 Fitzgerald & Mallory Const. Co. V. Fitzgerald 141 Fitzgerald v. Reed 57 Fitzharris v. Leggatt 202 Fitzhugh V. Love 276 Fitzhugh V. Wilcox 67 Fitzpatriek v. School Commis- sioners 166 Flach V. Gottschalk Co 56, 57 Flagg V. School District No. 7 . . 202 Flagg V. Upham 124 Flandrow v. Hammond 420 Flanigan v. Phelps 558 Fleekner v. U. S. Bank 145 Fleming v. Burger 25, 169, 173 Fleming v. Greene 299 Fleming v. Nail 196 PAGE. Fletcher v. Chase 274 Fletcher v. Dysart 167 Fletcher v. Pierson 464 Flinn v. Allen 420 Flint V. Craig 565 Flint v. Flint 324, 364 Flint V. Phipps '303 Flint V. Rogers 474 Flitt V. Pattee 283 Florence Min. Co. v. Brown. 637, 638 Florence R. & Imp. Co. v. Chase Nat. Bank 385 Flour City Nat. Bank v. Grover, 392 Flournoy v. First Nat. Bank. 275, 311 Flower v. Sadler 297 Floyd County Comrs. v. Day.... 184 Floyd V. Miller 129 Foard v. Johnson 514 Foden v. Sharp 454 Foerster, Succession of 540 Fogg V. Babcock 352 Fogg V. School District of Se- dalia 255 Foley V. Smith 305, 364 Foley V. Speir 295 Folger V. Chase 321, 340, 441 FoUam v. Dupre 613 Folsom V. Carli 552, 553 Folsom V. Mussey 274 Folsom V. School District. . 148, 149 Folwell V. Beaver 244 Fonner v. Smith 638 Foot V. Sabin 116, 119, 120 Forbes v. Omaha Nat. Bank 512 Forbes v. Ross 79 Forbes v. Rowe 470 Forbes v. Williams 273, 278, 279 Ford v. Angelrodt 607 Ford V. Hill 142 Ford V. Mitchell 27 Ford V. Phillips 52, 53, 363 Fordyee v. Kosminski 251 Fordyce v. Nelson 323, 642 Foreman v. Beckwith 349 Forster v. Fuller 96 Forster v. Mackreth 112, 247 Forster v. Second Nat. Bank. . . . 354 Forsyth v. Bonta 16'8, 570 Forsyth v. Day 87, 166 Fort Dearborn Nat. Bank v. Car- ter 410 Fortier v. Darst 333 Fortune v. Stockton 536 Foss V. Cummings 299 Foster v. CoUner 426 Foster v. Floyd 244 Foster v. Julien 457 Foster v. McDonald 495, 506 Foster v. Metts 293 Foster v. Ohio-Colo. Reduction & Mining Co 138 xlviii Table of Cases Cited. PAGE. Foster V. Swasey 419 Postei' V. Wise . . '. 293 Fountain v. Bookstaver 321 Fourth Nat. Bank v. Altheimer. 491 Fourth Nat. Bank v. Hensehen . . 462 Fourth St. Nat. Bank v. Yardley, 638 Fowell V. Forrest 541 Fowler v. Atkinson 103 Fowler v. Brantley 344, 365 Fowler v. Gates City Nat. Bank. 596 Fowler v. Richardson 129 Fox V. Bank of Kansas City 307 Fox V. Clifton 106 Fox V. Drake 103 Fox V. Newell 501 Fralick v. Norton 180 Franc v. Dickinson 393 Francis v. Castleman 209, 265 Francis v. Howard County 154 Frank v. Chemical Nat. Bank. . . 575 Frank v. Kaigler 323 Frank v. Lilienfieldi 252 Frank v. Quast 386 Frank v. Wessels.. 27, 28, 178, 211 237 Frankland v. Johnson 74, 90 Franklin v. Baker 559 Franklin v. March 25, 170 Franklin v. Toogood . . 319, 353, 354 648 Franklin Bank v. Freeman 519 Franklin Bank v. Lynch 600 Franks, Ex parte 63 Frazer v. Edwards 360, 365 Frazier v. Gains 250, 252 Frazier v. Massey 51 Frazier v. Moore 325 Frazier v. Trow's Printing & Bookbinding Co 247 Frazier v. Warfield 645 Freakley v. Fox 78, 543 Freed v. Brown 56 Freese v. Brownell 243, 647 Freeman v. Cooke 568 Freeman v. Exchange Bank of Macon 330 Freeman v. Falconer ...... 358, 391 Freeman v. Graemer 33 Freeman v. Perot 622 Freeman v. Perry 349, 358 Freeman v. Rollins 549 Freeman v. Ross 115, 124, 210 Freeman's Bar' v. Perkins.. 12, 449 496, 510 Freeman's Bank v. Rucklan. . . . 644 Freeman Bank v. Ruckman. 319, 352 Freeman's Nat. Bank v. National Tube Works Co 329, 332 Freeman's Nat. Bank v. Savery. . 116 118 PAGE. French v. Bank of Columbia .... 443 444, 465 French v. Barney 234, 318 French v. Carr 280 French v. Turner 322 French v. Grindle 431 French v. Jarvis 345 French v. Talbot Pav. Co 394 Freund v. Importers & Traders' Nat. Bank 348, 350 Fridge v. State 43 Friend v. Daryee 113 Friend v. Miller 295 Friese v. Brownell 454, 642 Fridenburg v. Robinson 548 Frost V. Deering 165 Frost V. Gage 579 Frost V. Martin 534 Fruehey v. Eagleson 46 Fry V. Rousseau 188, 193 Frye v. Tucker 143 Fuld V. Thornton 613 Fuller V. Bartlett 64 Fuller V. Bean 642 Puller V. Green 291 Fuller V. Hooper 92, 96 Fuller V. Hutchins 361, 396 Fuller V. McDonald 471 Fuller V. Percival 108, 111 Fuller V. Scott 416 Fuller V. Smith 334, 433 Fullerton v. Hill 95, 416 FuUerton v. Sturges " 384 Fulton V. Day 297 Fulton V. Central Bank of Pitts- burgh 132 Funk V. Babbitt 16 Furber v. Caverly . .- .• 524 Furgerson v. Staples . ; 184, 411 427, 428 Furman v. Harman 475 Furman v. Harkins 367 Furth V. Baxter 466, 471 G. Gaar v. Louisville Banking Co.. 199 207 Gabay v. Doane 426 Gafford v. Hall 368 Gage V. Jacqueth 33 Gage V. Mechanics' Nat. Bank. . 445 Gage Hotel Co. v. Union Nat. Bank 638 Gaines v. Poor 295 Gale V. Birmingham 372 Gale V. Miller 124, 255 Gale V. Wells 370 Galena v. Corwith 148, 155, 156 Galena Ins. Co. v. Kupfer 196 Galpin v. Hurd 468 Table of Cases Cited. xlix PAGE. Galusha v. Sherman 350 Galway v. Mather 110 Gamwell v. Mosely . . . 282, 287, 303 Gane v. Loemo Printing Co 141 Gano V. Finnell 386 Gano V. Heath 564 Gano V. Samuel . . 119, 121, 123, 376 Gansevoort v. Williams. 115, 119, 121 Gardner v. Bank of Tennessee. . . 12 452, 454, 612 Gardner v. Barger 220 Gardner v. Gardner 165 Gardner v. Merritt 256 Gardner v. National City Bank. . 580 Garfield Nat. Bank v. Colwell ... 259 311, 368, 388 Garland v. Jacomb . . 112 Garland v. Lane * 396 Garland v. Scott 26, 173 Garland v. West 446, 479 Garner v. Cook 51, 358 Garner v. Fite 260 Garr v. Haskett 46 Garratt v. Jaffray 326 Garrell v. Lillie 391 Garrett v. Interstate Bank 185 Garrett v. Republican Pub. Co . . 104 Garrigus v. Home, etc.. Mission- ary Soc 260, 283 Garrison v. King 280 Garthwaite v. Bank of Tulare... 256 459 Garton v. Union City Nat. Bank. 340 Garvey v. Marks 260 Garvin v. Wiswell 184 Gaters v. Maderly 68 Gates V. Beeeher 462, 463, 499 Gates T. Eno 188 Gates V. Hamilton 293 Gates V. Parker 599 Gates V. Eenfroe 282 Gause v. Clarksville 153 Gawtry v. Doane 513 Gay V. Ballou 46 Gay V. Hazeltine 444 Gay V. Eainey 648 Gay V. Eooke 26, 172, 173 Gaylord v. Nebraska Sav. & Exch. Bank 325 Gaylord v. Van Loan.. 210, 211, 265 Gaytes v. Hibbard 228 Gazzam v. Armstrong Exrs 625 Geary v. Physic 162, 269 Geddes v. Blackmore 251 GeUbach v. Cartinville Nat. Bank 238, 368, 376 Gelpcke v. Dubuque 37 George v. Cutting '. 68 George v. Surrey . . ■. 269 Georgia Nat. Bank v. Henderson. 32 477, 628 iv PAGE. Georgia Seed Co. v. Talmadge . . . 637 Geortner v. Trustees of Canajo- harie 132 General Electric Co. v. Nassau Electric R. Co 292 General Estates Co., In re 134 Genesee Bank v. Patchin Bank.. 108 Genesee College v. Dodge 441 Genesee Co. Sav. Bank v. Michi- gan Barge Co 135, 38& Geralopulo v. Wieler 617 Gerard v. La Coste 222 Gerard v. McCormick 371, 385 Gere v. Unger 394 German-American Bank v. At- water 502 German-American Bank v. Niag- ara Cyc. Co 54» Germania Bank v. Distler . . 241, 246- 248 Germania Bank v. Michaud 74 German Nat. Bank v. Foreman. Germania Nat. Bank v. Taaks. . Germania Sav. Bank v. Boutell. 482- 600 572 573 Gernon v. Hoyt 126 Gervais v. Baird 164 Gettysburg Nat. Bank v. Chis- holm 559 Geyser v. Kershner 472 Gibbs V. Cameron 470' Gibbs V. Linabury 377 Giberson v. JoUey 393 Gibson v. Hutchins 362 Gibson v. Irby 84 Gibson v. Powell 321 Giddens v. Lea 298 Giddings v. Giddings 256, 278 Giffert v. West 356, 421 Gilbert v. Dennis 458, 499' Gilbert v. McAnnany 134 Gilbert v. Sharp 351 Giles v. Bourne 241, 265 Gill V. First Nat. Bank 216 Gill V. Hopkins 249 Gill V. Palmer 499 Gillaspie v. Kelley 250, 251 Gillespie v. Campbell 436 Gillespie v. Hannahan 469 Gillespie v. Mather 606 Gillespie v. Rogers 376. Gillet V. Averill 443 Gillett V. Taylor 267 Gillig V. Lake Bigler Road Co.. 92 Gilliland v. Myers 409, 580' Gillis v. Groodwin 47 Gilman v. Lewis 431 Gilmore v. Hirst 200, 207, 23» Gilmore v. Wilbur 588 Gilpin V. Marley 416- Table of Cases Cited. FAQE. Girard Bank v. Bank of Penn Township 635 Girard v. Bichardson 294 Gist V. Lybrand 459, 469, 512 Givens v. Merchants' Nat. Bank. 519 Gladwell v. Turner 504 Glascow V. Pratte 521 Glaser v. Rounds 519 Glasgow V. Copland 586 Glasscock v. Bank of Missouri.. 512 Glassford v. Davis 519 Glaze V. Ferguson 472, 522, 524 Gleason v. Hamilton 558 Gleasou v. Henry 167 Glenn v. Farmers' Bank, etc 379 Glenn v. Noble 29 Glidden v. Henry 220 Gliddon v. MeKinstry 187 Glover v. Gentry 560 Glover v. Ott's Admr 46 Goading v. Britain 188 Goddard v. Merchants' Bank. . . . 408 574, 576 Godfrey v. Rice 522 Goetz v. Goldbaum 167 Goings V. Chapman 444 Goldman v. Blum 323 Goldsmid v. Hampton 163 Goldthwait v. Bradford 386 Golladay v. Bank of the Union. . 519 Gompertz v. Bartlett 334 Good V. Martin 342, 416 Goodall v. Polhill 497, 626 Goodfellow V. Landis 359 Goodhue v. Barnwell 66 Goodin v. Buhler 200 Goodloe V. Taylor 214, 220 Goodman v. Eastman 558 Goodman v. Harvey 373 Goodman v. Morton 507, 508 Goodman v. Simonds 138, 249 250, 261, 373, 375, 382, 392 Goodnow V. Warren 491 Goodpaster v. Vbris • 360 Goodrich v. Buzzell 369 Goodrich v. City of Waterville. . 158 Goodrich v. Detroit 148 Goodrich v. Gordon . . . 186, 598, 600 Goodrich v. Reynolds 143 Goodrich v. Stanley 386 Goodrich v. Wilder 143, 144 Goodsell V. Myers 47, 51 Goodspeed v. Cutler 559 Goodwin v. Conklin 311 Goodwin v. Davenport 448 Goodwin v. Home 375 Goodwin, In re 551 Goodwin v. Morse 275 Goodwin v. Robarts 3, 5, 22, 261 Gookin v. Richardson 322 Gorder v. Freeholder Bank 293 PAGE. Gordon v. Ames 257 Gordon v. Anderson 229 Gordon v. Boppe 311 Gordon v. Montgomery .... 524, 525 Gordon v. Price 613 Gordon v. Robertson « . . 557 Gordon v. Third Nat. Bank 551 Gordon v. Wansey 534 Gore V. Gibson 56, 61, 62 Gore V. Wilson 436 Gorrell v. Home Life Ins. Co ... . 402 Goshen & M. Turnpike Co. v. Hurtin 18 Goshen Nat. Bank v. Bingham.. 350 635 Goshen Turnpike Co. v. Hurtin.. 209 Gosman v. Cruger 64 Goss V. EmersiSi 181, 237 Gothrup V. Williamson 250, 251 Gough V. Staats 444, 487, 632 Gould V. Coombs 26, 172, 173 Gould V. Leavitt 400 Gould V. Norfolk Lead Co 141 Gould V. Segree 261, 289, 359 Gove V. Vining 520 Gowan v. Jackson 491, 528 Gowdey v. Bobbins 559 Gower v. Moore 461 Grabbe v. Bosse 435 Graf v. Smith 310 Graff V. Logue 386 Grafton Bank v. Flanders 165 Grafton Bank v. Rent 551 Grafton Bank v. Moore 12 Graham v. Campbell 83 Graham v. Larimer 396 Grain v. Aldrich 323 Grammel v. Carmer 637 Grand Bank v. Blanchard 507 Grand Gulf Bank v. Wood 354 Grange v. Reigh 444, 632 Grant v. Beard 80 Grant v. Burleson 196 Grant v. Chambers 292 Grant v. Ellicot 276 Grant v. Shaw 604 Grant v. Treadwell Co 385 Grant v. Vaughan 20, 229, 400 Grant v. Wood 176 Graves v. American Exchange Bank 573 Graves v. Kellenberger 114 Graves v. Merry 132 Gray v. Bank of Kentuclcy 397 Gray v. Bowden.... 26, 171, 172, 173 Gray v. Donahue . . . . ; 193 Gray v. Hawkins 72 Gray v. Siegler 297 Gray v. Turley 45 Graydon v. Patterson 538 Table of Cases Cited. PAGE. Oray Tie & liUmber Co. v. Farm- ers' Bank 12, 350 Greathead v. Walton 434 Greatstrake v. Brown 462 Great Western Tel. Co., In re. . 138 140, 369 Greeley v. Whitehead 441 Green v. Burton 119 Green v. Darling 444, 503 Green v. Deakin 123 Green v. Drebilbis 210 Green v. Duncan 407 Green v. Elson 442 Green v. Green 54 Green v. Jackson 12 Green v. Lowry 279 Green v. Raymond 477, 607 Green v. Shepherd 414 Green v. Wilding 43, 46 Green v. Wilkie 377, 378 Greenbaum v. Elliott 541 Greene v. Bates 548 Greene v. Duncan 275 Greene v. Farley 496 Greenfield v. Gilman 295 Greenfield Bank v. Crafts.. 166, 570 Greenfield Sav. Bank v. Stowell. 250 Greenhow v. Boyle 229 Greenleaf v. Cook 274 Greenlief v. Watson 441 Greenough v. Smead 463 Greenslade v. Dower 113 Greenwich Bank v. De Groot. 515, 516 Greenwood v. Coleock 296 Greenwood v. Curtis 640 Greenwood v. Lowe 306 Gregg V. Union Co. Nat. Bank. . . 27 Gregg v. Wells 668 Gregory v. Pierce 63 Gregory v. Pike 327 Greneaux v. Wheeler 234 Gresham v. Morrow 539 Greve v. Schweitzer 400 Grey v. Cooper 50, 51 Griener v. TJlery 403 Grier v. Cable 343 Griffith V. Reed 533 Griffith V. Assman 496 Griffiths V. Heydenburgh 296 Griffiths V. Parry 300 Griffin v. GoflF 442, 479 Griffin t. Hasty 362 Griffin v. Kemp 29, 444, 637 Griffin v. Ketoham 361 Griffin v. Nokes 352 Griffin v. Rice 482 Grigsby's Exr. v. Nance 403 Grimes v. Hillenbrand 379 Grimes v. Piersol . . 234, «25, 327, 428 Grimison v. Russell 176 Grimstead v. Briggs 558 PAGE. Grinman v. Walker 506 Griasom v. Commercial Nat. Bank 481 Grissom y. Fite 252 Griswold v. Waddington 70, 492 Groatman v. Delheim 446 Grocers' Bank v. Penfield. . 298, 313 394 Groeabeck v. Marshall 297 Gromnes v. Sullivan 133 Gross V. Arnold 258 Gross V. Funk 380 Gross V. Nelson 218 Grosvenor v. Stone 465 Groton v. Dallheim 470 Groves v. Ruby 323 Groves v. Stephenson 267 Groupy v. Harden 587 Greever v. Walkup 287 Guest V. Rhine 358 Guffet V. Dowdall 613 Guignon v. Union Trust Co 479 Guild V. Eager 346 Guinz V. Giegling 415 Gulett V. Sweat 534 Gunning v. Royal 291 Gunnis v. Weigley 234, 314, 318 Gunther v. Darmstadt 185 Gurnee v. Hutton 578 Gurney v. Womenley 433 Gustin V. Carpenter 64 Giitch V. Fosdyck 171 Guthrie v. Imbrie 86 Guthrie v. Morris 47 Guyther v. Bourg S25 Gwin V. Anderson 562 Gwyu V. Lee 379 H. Haber v. Brown 488 Habersham v. Lehman 325 Haekemaek v. Wiebrook 89 Haekettstown v. Swackhammer. 148, 152, 154 Hackley v. Spague 352 Haddock v. Croeheron 130, 131 Hadley v. Reed 281 Hadlock v. Brooks 595 Hagan v. Merchants & Bankers' Ins. Co 560 Hagen v. Boweu Nat. Bank 636 Hager v. Rice 94. Hagerthy v. Phillips 436 Hagey v. Hill 548, 550 Haggerty v. Engle 475, 478 Hague V. French 265 Hahn v. Brown _ , 468 Haight V. Joyce , . . ! . 379 Haight V. Naylor 90 Haile, y. Pierce 93, 95 lii Table of Oases Cited. Hailey v. Falconer 319, 335 Haine v. Tarrant 50 Haines v. Dubois 321, 386 Haines v. McFerren 481 Haines v. Nance 84 Halajox v. Tyle 409 Halbert v. Deering 189 Hale V. Bailey 325 Hale V. Burr 469 Hale V. Danforth 432, 472, 522 Hale V. Eice 540 Hale V. Shannon 394 Hall V. Allen 317 Hall V. Auburn Turnpike Co. ... 136 137 Hall V. Bradbury 452 Hall V. Butterfield 46 Hall V. Capital Bank of Macon. . 551 Hall V. Chilton 412 Hall V. Cordell 600, 646 Hall V. Costello 639 Hall V. First Nat. Bank 392 Hall V. Marks 299 Hall V. Eedson 165 Hall V. Rose Hill & Evanston Road Co 39 Hall V. Wilson 255, 378 Halliday v. MeDougall 12, 450 Hallis V. Vander Grift 221 Hallpwell Nat. Bank v. Marston. 525 Halsey v. Reid 52 Halstead v. Mayor 156 Jlamjanrg Bank v. Johnson 189 Hamburger V. Miller 434 Hamiltoji v. Aston 229 Hamilton v. Fpwler 380 Hamilton v. Grainger 61 Hamilton v. Grangers' S. & H. Ins. Co 221, 388 Hamilton v. Hamilton 295 Hamilton v. Hooper 564 Hamilton v. Johnston 533 Hamilton v. Myrick 187 Hamilton v. New Castle & D. R. Co 133 Hamilton v. Prouty 548 Hamilton v. Skull 300 Hamilton v. Summers 124 Hamilton v. Vought 372 Hamilton College v. Stewart . . . 284 Hamilton Gin & Mill Co. v. Sinker 207 Hammett v. Trueworthy . . . ... . . 471 Hammond v. Shepard 283 Hampden Fire Ins. Co. v. Davis, 459 Hanauer v. Anderson 467, 505 Hanauer v. Doane 368 Hancock v. Fairfield 97 Hancoek v. Hodgson 293 Hancock- Bank -v. - Joy 67 Handyside v. Cameron 165 PAGE. Hangen v. Hachmeister 55 Hangen v, Sunwal 366 Hankerson v. Emery 335 Hankin v. Squires 578 Hankins v. Shoup 365 Hanks v. Dunlap 234 Hannahs v. Sheldon 60 Hannibal & fit. J. R. R. Co. v. Crane 441 Hannum v. Richardson 419, 427 Hanover Bank v. American Dock & I. Co 143 Hanover Nat. Bank v. Johnson. 206 Hansborough v. Gray 440, 466 Hanson v. Crawley 564 Hapgood V. Neeaham 304, 396 Hapgood V. Watson 3V jL Harbeck v. Craft 386, 630 Harboard v. Cooper 352 Harden v. Boyce 505 Hardenbrook v. Sherwood 56 Harden County, v. McFarlan ... 155 Hardin v. McKittrick 286 Hardin v. Sweeney 442 Harding v. State 566 Hardy v. First Nat. Bank 388 Hardy v. Merriweather 143 Hardy v. Norton 250 Hardy v. Pilther 93 Hardy v. Waddell 363 Hardy v. Waters 51 Hare v. Henty 487 Harger v. Bemis 514 Harger v. Wilson 306 Harger v. Worrall 392, 395, 397 Hargis v. Trust Co 392 Hargous v. Lahens 358 Harker v. Anderson 212, 637 Harkell v. Mitchell 361 Harlow v. Boswell 311 Harman v. Johnson 112 Harmon v. Bird 285 Harmon v. James 170 Harmon v. Hope 360 Harmon v. Wilson 12, 14 Harner v. Wood 110 Harness v. Davis County Sav. Bank .' 519 Harpending v. Gray 536 Harper v. Calhoun 145 Harper v. Devene 570 Harper v. Kenner 505 Harper v. Young 379 Harral v. Steinherger 519 Harrell v. Broxton 361 Harriman v. Hill 358 Harrunan v. Sanborn 187 Harrington v. Crawford 296 Harrington v. Dorr. . . 312, 313, 344 Harrington v. Johnson 306 Harrington v. Stratton 275 Table of Cases Cited. liii PAGE. Harris v. Berger 250 Harris v. Bohle 64 Harris v. Bradley 434 Harris v. Brooks 401, 402 Harris v. Clark 404, 463 Harris v. Culver 354 Harris v. Davis 58 Harris v. Dolmetch 175 Harris v. Finberg 69 Harris v. Gates 66 Harris v. Harris 290, 293 Harris v. Jacksonville Bank . . . 560 Harris v. Robinson . . . 4«4, 496, 513 510 Harris v. Roof 296 Harris v. Simonson 296 Harris v. Taylor 64 Harris v. Wall 52 Harrison v. Bailey 518, 519 Harrison v. Crowder 460 Harrison v. Harrison 269 Harrison v. Jackson 107 Harrison v. McClelland 72, 83 Harrison v. Nicollet Nat. Bank . . 32 477, 628 Harrison v. Olley 57 Harrison v. Pike 392 Harrison v. Wright 29, 33, 637 Harrod v. McDaniels 80 Harrop v. Fisher 351 Harrow v. Dugan 171 Hart V. Adler 306 Hart V. Conner 25 Hart V. Eastman 489 Hart V. Green 441 Hart V. Palmer 376 Hart V. Shorter 15 Hart V. Smith 477, 586 Hart V. Stephens 68 Hart V. Taylor 176, 230 Hartford Bank v. Barry . . . 145, 449 Hartford Bank v. Green . . . 243, 469 Hartford Bank v. Stedman .... 454 Harting v. Hopfeinson Ill Hartley v. Wharton 52 Hartley v. Wilkinson 180 Hartridge v. Wesson 12 Hartwell v. Candler 454 Harvey v. Hunt 297 Harvey v. Kay _ 15, 16 Harvey v. Martin 603 Harvey v. Nelson 525 Harwood v. Brown 273 Harwood v. Jarvis 466 Harwood v. Knapper 300 Hasbrouck v. Palmer 188 Haseall v. Whitmore 389, 390 Hasey v. White Pigeon Beet Sugar Co 16, 226, 608 Haskell v. Boardman.. 508, 510, 529 Haskell v, Cornish 89 PAGE. Haskell v. Lambert 180 Haskell v. Mitchell 351 Haslett V. Poultney 495 Hastings v. Thompson 203 Hatch V. Barrett 319 Hatch V. Burroughs 379 Hatch V. Coddington 141 Hatch V. Dennis 363 Hatch V. First Nat. Bank.. 193, 194 Hatch V. Trayes 242 Hatcher v. McMorine 647 Hately v. Pike 100, 429 Hatton V. Johnson 256 Hatton V. Stewart 129 Haven v. Hobbs 165 Havens v. Huntington. 344, 346, 362 Havens v. Potts 354, 355 Hawes v. Blackwell 637, 638 Hawkes v. Philips 414 Hawkins v. Cardy 323 Hawkins v. Carroll County, 148, 154 Hawkins v. Thompson 547 Hawkins v. Wilson 376 Hawkinsou v. Olson 470 Hawks V. Truesdale 274 Hawley v. Bibb 379 Hawley v. Jette 32, 470 Hawley v. McCredy 437 Hawthorn v. State 29 Hawxhurst v. Eitch 277 Haxtun v. Bishop 441 Hay V. Coddington 393 Hay V. Jaeckle 311 Haycock v. Rand 300 Hayden v. Goodnow 560 Hayden v. Strong 336 Haydenville Sav. Bank v. Parsons, 549 Hayes v. Brubaker 90 Hayes v. Fitch 524 Hayes v. Hathorn 392 Hayes v. Werner 447 Hayling v. Mulhall 543 Haynes v. Beckman 145 Haynes v. Rudd 295, 297 Haynes v. Scott 56 Hays v. Crutcher 90 Hays v. Givin 176 Hays v. Lathrop Bank ........ 29 Hays v. Plummer 321, 350 Hayward, Ex parte 163 Hayward v. Graham Book & Sta- tionery Co 133 Hayward v. Grant 302 Hayward v. Stearns 365 Hazard v. Cole 226 Hazard v. Spenser 394 Hazard v. Whitie 550 Hazleham v. Young 119 Hazleton v. Batchelder ^ . 167 Hazleton Coal Co. v. Ryerson 512 liv Table of Cases Cited. PAGE. Hazelton Coutiiy v. Union Imp. Co 607 Head v. Baldwin 281 Headley v. Good 286 Heady v. Boden 52 Healy v. Oilman 409, 464 Healy v. Gorman 642 Heard v. Dubuque County Bank. 207 235, 237 Heard v. Shedden 369 Heartt v. Roads 538, 630 Heath v. Blake 563 Heath v. Smelting Co 288 Heath v. Van Cott 405 Heaton v. Myers 84 Heaverin v. DonBell 275 Heberton v. Jepherson 129, 132 Hecht V. Batcheller 424 Heeksher v. Shoemaker 400 Hedge v. Gibson 362 Hedge v. McQuade 539 Hedges v. Sealy 349 Hedley v. Bainbridge 112, 247 Heeman v. Nash 595 Heermans v. Ellsworth 350 HefTner v. Werick 560 Heffron v. Cunningham 386 Heffrou v. Hanaford 119 Hefner v. Dawson 168 Hefner v. Vandolah . . . 166, 167, 168 570, 571 Hegeler v. Comstock 200 Hegeman v. Moon 218, 301, 302 Heironimus v. Sweeney 133 Heifer v. Alden 244 Helmer v. Krolick 360, 366 Helmetag v. Frank 64 Helms V. Douglas 372 Hemmenway v. Stone 267, 368 Hemphill v. Yerdes 637 Henderson v. Fox 46 Henderson v. Lemly 427 Henderson v. Pope 32, 477, 628 Henderson v. Stobart 546 Henderson v. Wilson 562 Hendricks v. Judah 342 Hendricks v. Thornton 230 Hendrie v. Berkowitz 118, 119 Henrietta Nat. Bank v. State Bank 633 Henry v. Connelly 538 Henry v. Guillard 354 Henry v. Heeb 569 Henry v. Hazen 176 Henry v. Hughes 189 Henry v. Jones 480 Henry v. Eitenour 290 Henry v. Sneed 369, 396 Henry v. State Bank 487 Hensel v. Chicago, St. P., M. & 0. R. Co 261, 567 PAGE. Henshaw v. Dutton 260' Henshaw v. Root 29 Hepler v. Mt. Carmel Sav. Bank. 249 Herald v. Harper 77 Herbert v. Ford 275 Hereth v. Bank 185 Herker v. Anderson 629 Herkimer County Bank v. Cox. . 615 Herman v. Gunter 289, 307 Hermann v. Gunter 388 Hermanos v. Duvigneaud 113 Herrick v. Baldwin 457 Herriek v. Bennett 211 Herrick v. Carman 413 Herrick v. Swomley 362 Herriek v. Whitney 426 Herrick v. Wolverton ( 367 Herring v. Sanger 441 Herring v. Woodhull .. 319, 320, 321 324 Hershaw v. Kelsey 70" Hertell v. Bogert 75 Herter v. Goss & Edsall Co 607 Heshion v. Julian 105 Heurtematt v. Morris . . 276, 407, 410 Hewins v. Cargill 563 Hewitt V. Waterman 424 Hej'wood V. Perrin 180 Heywood v. Wingate 23, 224 Hiawatha Iron Co. v. John Strange Paper Co , 371 Hibbard v. Russell 471 Hibernia Bank v. Lacombe 642 Hibernia Bank v. O'Grady 475 Hibler v. De Forrest 120 Hickman v. Hall's Admr 47 Hickman v. Kunkle 109, 114 Hickman v. Reinking 124 Hickman v. Ryan 507 Hickok V. Bunting 169 Hicks V. Hinde 406 Hickson v. Early 299 High V. Cox 548 Higgins V. Barrowclifife 510 Higginson v. Gray 281 Highsmith v. Martin 376 Higgins V. Morrison . . . 492, 548, 549 Higgins V. Ridgway 259 Higgins V. Strong 285 Higgins V. Willis 66 Higgins V. Wright 314 Hilborn v. Artus 318 Hildeburn v. Turner 459 Hildreth v. Turner 286 Hill V. Buckminster 272, 273 Hill V. Gooley 559 Hill V. Memphis 154, 155 Hill V. Norris , 465 Hill V. Shields 335, 365 Hill V. Todd 204 Hill V. Vanell 514r Table of Cases Cited. Iv PAGES Hillenbrand v. Shippen 292 Hills V. Bannister 88, 90, 146 Hills V. Place 441, 537 Hillsdale College v. Thomas 256 Hillstrom v. Anderson 184 Hilton V. Britton 366 Hilton V. Shepard 54 Himelright v. Johnson 124 Himmelman v. Hotaling 632 Hinckley v. Union Pae. Ky. Co.. 364 Hindeburn v. Turner 612 Hine v. Alley 455, 502 Hine v. Bailey 548 Hiue V. Roberts 176 Hindert v. Schneider 293 Hinkle v. Dodge 164 Hinsdale v. Miles 458 Hirschfleld v. Smith 502 Hirshiield v. Fort Worth Nat. Bank 475 Hitchcock V. Buchanan 91, 99 Hitchcock V. Cloutier 17, 169 Hitchcock V. Hogan 475 Hitchcock V. Kieley 64 Hinely v. Margaritz , 53 Hixon V. Keed 436 Hoadley v. Bliss 518 Hoare v. Cazenove 622 Haats V. Aschbaeh 376 Hobart v. Stone 543 Hobbs V. Godlove 46 Hobson V. Hasset 90 Hobbs V. Straine 518, 519, 527 Hochmark v. Richler 564 Hodgdon v. Golden 274 Hodges V. Adams 325 Hodges V. Black 307 Hodges V. Clinton 189 Hodges V. Hall 176 Hodges V. Nash 311, 386 Hodges V. Schuyler 185, 189, 196 237, 240, 428, 499, 647 Hodges V. Steward 42 Hodson V. Eugene Glass Co . . 374, 393 Hoeflinger v. Wells 127 Hoff V. Hatch 461 Hoff acker v. Manufacturers' Nat. Bank 536 Hoffman v. Foster 313 Hoffman v. Hollingsworth 446 Hoffman v. Miller 359 Hoffman v. Planters' Nat. Bank. 557 561, 564 Hogan V. Moore 390 Hoge V. Lansing 551 Hogg V. Smith 81 Hogue V. Davis 436 Hogue V. Williamson . . 189, 195 Hoit V. Underbill 52 Holbrook v. Basset 144 Holbrook v. Burt 588 PAGE. Holbrook v. Oberne 105 Holcomb T. Wyekoff 376 Holden v. Cosgrove 397 Holden v. Durant 384 Holden v. French 105 Holden v. Kirby 536 Holditch V. Canty 498 Holdsworth v. Hunter 582, S83 Holland v. Barnes 393 Holland v. Clark ,. 473 Holland v. Hoyt 273 Holland v. Makepeace 355, 362 Holland v. Turner 523, 529 Holland v. Van Beil 535 Holland Trust Co. v. Waddell .. 311 539 Hollen V. Davis 264 Holley V. Adams 277, 283 Holliday v. Lewis 303 Hollingsworth v. Moulton 298 HoUinshead v. John Stuart & Co. 536 537 Hollister v. Hopkins.. 188, 275, 276 580 Holman v. Whiting 466, 522 Holmes v. Bemis 311 Holmes v. First Nat. Bank 429 Holmes v. Jacques 228, 229 Holmes v. Kerrison 210 Holmes v. Shreveport 156 Holmes v. West 211 Holmes v. Willard 137 Holmes v. Williams 416 Holmes & Griggs Mfg. Co. v. Holmes & Wessel Metal Co . . . 402 Holsworth V. Hunter 226 Holt V. Moore 429 Holt V. Robinson 277 Holt V. Ross 408, 576 Holt V. Simmons 108 Holton V. McCormick. . 405, 428, 429 Home Bank v. Drumgoole.. 178, 215 Home Ins. Co. v. Green 500 Home Sav. Bank v. Hosie 447 Homes v. Hale 375, 376 Homes v. Smith 475, 478 Homes v. Smyth 289, 307 Hood V. Hallenbeek 97, 525 Hook V. Pratt 331, 332 Hook V. White 538 Hooker v. Mcintosh 287 Hooper v. Eiland 259 Hooper v. State 566 Hooper v. Williams 17 Hoover v. McCormick 471 Hooks V. Anderson 443 Hope V. Barker 200, 211 Hope V. Cust 123 Hopkins v. Farwell 534, Hopkins v. Lane 267" Hopkins v. Seymour 317 Ivi Table of Cases Cited. PAGE. Hopkinson v. Foster 31, 579 Hoppin V. Quin 360 Hopson y. Brunwankel 173 Hopson V. Fountain 190 Hopson V. Johnson 73 Horan v. Long 340 Hord V. Lee 77 Horker v. Anderson 632 Horn V. Fuller 290 Horn V. Newton City Bank 558 Home V. Young 539 Horton v. Horton 563 Hoskinson v. Elliott 108, 109 Hosier v. Beard . . 57, 58, 59, 60, 383 Hosstatter v. Wilson 196; 240 Hostetter v. Hoke 72 Hotchkiss V. English 117 Hotchkiss V. National Banks .... 372 Houck V. Graham 564 Hough V. Gray 445 Houghton V. First Nat. Bank. . . 102 145, 340 Houlton V. Dunn 296 Houriet v. Morris 71 House V. Adams 530, 586, 592 House V. Alexander 47 House V. Vinton Nat. Bank. 442, 493 Hovey v. Holson 56 Hovey v. Magill 88, 94 Hovey v. Sebring 392 Howard v. Ames 275 Howard v. Baillie 81 Howard v. Boorman 440 Howard v. Duncan 166, 570 Howard v. Hodges 294 Howard v. Ives 508 Howard v. Kitchens 66 Howard v. Mississippi Bank 408 Howard v. Palmer 224 Howard v. Simpkins 237 Howard v. Van Gibson .... 413, 514 Howard Bank v. Carson 442 Howard Banking Co. v. Welch- man 551 Howe v. Hartness 27, 191, 194 Howe V. Litchfield 300 Howe V. Merrill 415 Howe V. Raymond 273 Howe V. Wildes 62 Howell V. Adams 558 Howell V. Crane 390 Howell V. Todd 195 Howell V. Wilson 427 Howell V. Wright 303 Howenstein v. Barnes 207 Howie V. Lewis 563 Howk V. Eckert 368 Howland v. Carson 600 Howlands v. Edmunds 212, 446 Howry v. Eppinger . . . . ■ 234 Hoyt V. Casey 47 PAGE. Hoyt v. Cross 299 Hoyt V. Lynch 168, 175, 184 Hoyt V. Mclntire 259 Hoyt V. Mead 400, 401 Hoyt V. Seeley 444 Hoyt V. Thompson's Executors . . 142 Hubbard v. Exchange Bank 645 Hubbard v. Fletcher 293 Hubbard v. Gurney 401, 402 Hubbard v. Harriman 207 Hubbard v. Lyndon ; . . 156 Hubbard v. Matthews 491 Hubbard v. Mosely 177, 178, 180 Hubbard v. Rankin 376 Hubbard v. Troy 503 Hubble V. Fogartie 464 Huber v. Egner 354 Hubert v. Grady 185 Huddleston v. Kempner 362 Hudson v. Green Hill Sem 284 Hudson V. Matthews 477 Hudson V. Wier 358 Hudson V. Wolcott 472 Hughes V. Fisher 607 Hughes V. Jones 57 Hughes V. Large 365 Hughitt V. Johnson 202, 239 Hulbert v. Douglas 431 Huling V. Hogg 224 Hull V. Farmers & Merchants' Bank 353 Hull V. Myers 443 HuUum V. State Bank 412 Hulme V. Tenant 64 Humphrey v. Beckwith 181 Humphrey v. Clark 376 Humphreys v. Collier 649 Humphreys v. Guillow 558 Humphries v. Bicknell 29 Hungerford v. O'Brien 445 Hunstock V. Palmer 294 Hunt, Appellant 28, 79 Hunt V. Adams . . 163, 251, 387, 401 Hunt V. Chapin 113 Hunt V. Devine 17, 27, 169, 211 Hunt V. Gray 558 Hunt V. Hall 642 Hunt V. Johnson 276 Hunt V. Listenberger 341 Hunt V. Maybee 452 Hunt V. Massey 48, 51 Hunt V. Mississippi Cent. R. R. Co 33, 34 Hunt V. Rumsey 368, 388 Hunt V. Standart 644, 645, 647 Hunt V. Wadleigh 470, 519 Himt V. Willianis 607 Hunter v. Clarke 211, 216, 217 Hunter v. Hempstead 327, 462 Hunter v. Hook 472, 519 Huntington v. Lombard 350 Table oe Cases Cited. Ivii PAGE. Hurd V. Dubuque County Bank. . 217 Hurst V. Chambers 420, 426, 431 Hurst V. Hill 129 Hurst V. Trow's Printing & Book- binding Co 549 Hurt V. Ford 260, 261 Husband v. Epling 220 Husbrook v. Wilder 209 Huse V. Alexander 539 Huse V. Hamblin 191,, 488 Hussey v. Freeman 503 Hussey v. Sibley 420, 422 Hussey v. Winslow 170 Huston V. Weber ., 444 Hutehings v. Low 317 Hutchins v. Nichols 548 Hutchinson v. Benedict 265 Huyck V. Meador 25, 173 Hyde v. Franklin 156 Hyde v. Goodnow 640 Hyde v. Larkin 139 Hyde v. Skinner 74 Hyer v. Hatt 51 Hyman v. Cain 46 Hyman v. Moore 61 Hypes V. Griffin 91, 96 Hyslop V. Jones 506 I. Illinois Bank v. Brady 642 Ilsley V. Smedes 237 Imhdff V. Witmer's Admr 61 Imlay v. Huntington 64 Indiana & 111. Cent. E. Co. v. Davis 225, 226 Indianapolis v. Indianapolis Gas Co. 148 Indianapolis & C. R. Co. v. Evans- ville 157 Indig V. National City Bank. . . . 482 Industrial Bank of Chicago v. Bowes 30, 630 Industrial Trust, Title & Sav. Co. V. Weakley 631, 637 Ingalls V. Lee 431 Inge V. Branch Bank of Mobile . . 548 549 Ingham v. Primrose 254 Inglis V. Kennedy 313 Ingraham v. Baldwin 61 Inkster v. First Nat. Bank 401 Instone v. Williamson 353 International Bank v. Parker. . . 565 Iowa City Nat. Bank v. Ryerson. 472 Iowa Collpge Trustees v. Hill... 250 Iowa Valley State Bank v. S'ig- stad . . . ." 471, 525, 561 Ipswich Mfg. Co. V. Story 78 Ireland v. Kip 507 Irish V, Cutter 415 PAGB. Iron City Nat. Bank v. MeCord. . 176 Irvin V. Irviu 295 Irvin V. Thompson 165 Irvine v. Lowry 193 Irving Bank v. Wetherald 635 Irving Nat. Banlc v. Alley;. 23, 224 233^ 318, 434 Irwin V. Bailey 141, 358, 385 Irwin V. Lombard University. . . . 283 Irwin v. Marquette 298 Isbell V. Lewis 520 Iselin V. Chemical Nat. Bank 410 Iseliu V. Rowlands 329 Ish V. Mills 488 Isham V. Fox 477 Israel v. Israel 26, 173 Ive V. Chester 46 Ives V. Bosley 415, 550 Ives V. Farmers' Bank. . 250, 251, 562 Ivey V. Nicks 379 Ivory V. Michael 251 Ivory V. Missouri State Bank 477 J. Jacard v. Anderson 525 Jackman v. Bowker 188 Jackson v. Am. Mortgage Co. . . . 643 Jackson v. Bank 81 Jackson Bank v. Irons 415 Jackson v. Gumaer 56 Jackson v. Hudson 595 Jackson v. Richards 470 Jackson v. Stockbridge 300 Jackson v. York & O. R. Co 38 Jacobs, Ex parte 544 Jacobs V. Gibson 525 Jacobs V. Gilreath 559 Jacoby v. Ross 234 Jacques v. Marquand 127 Jacquin v. Warner 25 Jacquin v. Warren 173 Jagger v. Nat. German-Am. Bank, 486 James v. Chalmers 392 James v. City of Newton 323 James v. Dalbey 561 James v. E. G. Lyons Co 599 James v. GrofF 68 James v. Hagar 176 James v. Rogers . . . ; 133 James v. Smith 429 James v. Stewart 63 James v. Yaeger 363, 366 James's Admr. v. Rogers 135 Janes v. Citizens' Bank of North Enid 95 Janes v. Mercer University. 374, 375 Janin v. London & S. F. Bank. . . 575 Jansen v. Grimshaw 539 Jansen v. McCahill , . . 165 January v. Duncan 442 Iviii Table of Cases Cited. PAGE. Jarnagin v. Stratton 492 Jarvis v. Garnett 456 Jarvis v. Manhattan Beach Co . . 39 Jarvis v. Roentgen 293 Jarvis v. St. Croix Mfg. Co 509 Jarvis v. Wilkins 185 Jarvis v. Wilson 175, 594 Jeffords v. Ringgold 47 Jefts V. York 74, 87 Jeneson v. Jeneson 60 Jenk V. Wells 607 Jenkins v. Jenkins S5 Jenkins v. Phillips 73 Jenkins v. Bass 23 Jenkins v. Tongue 22 Jenkins v. White 472, 522 Jenkins v. Wilkinson 349 Jenness v. Carleton 129 Jenness v. Parker 274 Jennings v. Bass 252 Jennings v. Chase 550 Jennings v. Pirst Nat. Bank .... 176 Jennings v. Todd 370^ 372, 386 Jennison v. Stafford 293, 303 Jerome v. Whitney 189, 244 Jewell Belting Co. v. Rogers 293 Jewett V. Cook 391, 392 Joest V. Williams 61 Johanessen v. Monroe 35, 36 John Church Co. v. Spurrier 202 Johnson V. Arrigoni 519 Johnson .. Baird 195 Johnson v. Barry W8 Johnson v. Blake 427 Johnson v. Blasdale 252 Johnson v. Bloodgood 362 Johnson v. Brown 516, 611 Johnson v. Catlin 340 Johnson v. Ceilings 597 Johnson v. Conklin 413 Johnson v. Crane 436, 521, 554 Johnson v. Donnell 331 Johnson v. Prisbie 203 Johnson v. Gallagher 64 Johnson v. Glover 100, 360, 429 Johnson v. Haight 475 Johnson v. Hall 535 Johnson Harvester Co. v. McLean. 252 Johnson v. Henderson 27, 193 Johnson v. Johnson. 25, 173, 242, 559 Johnson v. King 402 Johnson v. Lines 46 .Johnson v. Mangum 77 Johnson v. Mitchell 294, 326, 338 Johnson v. Moreley ............ 301 Johnson v. Parsons 525 Johnson -v. Ramsey 436 Johnson v. Robarts 307 Johnson v. Schar 208 Johnson v. Stark County 38 Johnson v, Titus 278 PAGK. Johnson v. Williard 335 Johnson County 8av. Bank v. Lowe 525 Johnson School Township v. Citi- zens' Bank 170, 174 Johnston v. Commercial Bank . . 374 Johnston v. Dickson 379 Johnston v. Dutton 114 Johnston v. Gawtry 641 Johnston v. Griest 170, 282 Johnston Harvester Co. v. Mc- Lean 287 Johnston v. McConnell 299 Johnston v. McDonald 415 Johnston v. Speer 208 Johnston v. Wabash College 283 Joliff v. Collins 285 Jones V. Bangs 563 Jones V. Booth 124 Jones V. Bristow 400 Jones V. Brown 211 Jones V. Caswell 362 Jones V. Crawford 207 Jones V. Crosthwaite 334 Jones V. Dana 299 Jones V. Degge 278, 279 Jones V. Deyer 282 Jones V. Dulick 238 Jones V. Pailes 180 Jones V. Pales 189, 477, 479 Jones V. Pritchy 61 Jones V. Goodwin 443 Jones V. Haight 442 Jones V. Hamlet 167 Jones V. Hawkins 145 Jones V. Heiliger 406 Jones V. Home Pumishing Co . . . 269 402 Jones V. Le Tombe 103 Jones V. Lewis 507 Jones V. Middleton 448 Jones V. Overstreet 190 Jones V. Prumm 250 Jones V. Radatz 208 Jones V. Rice 297 Jones V. Rider 539 Jones V. Rittenhouse 292 Jones V. Rives 124 Jones V. Robinson 442, 448, 449 Jones V. Ryde 334 Jones V. Savage 444, 487, 519 Jones V. Sevier 299 Jones V. Shapera 318 Jones V. Shaver 280 Jones V. Shaw 260 Jones V. Shelbyville 250 Jones V. Shelbsrville, etc., Ins. Co. 252 Jones v. Swan 273, 368 Jones V. Witter 349 Jordan v. CoflSeld 4G Jordan v. Ford 498 Table of Cases Cited. lix PAGE. Jordan v. Garnett 413 Jordan v. Grover- 279, 393 Jordan v. Lofton 260 Jordan v. Long 612 Jordan v. Jordan 387 Jordan v. Nielson 252 Jordan v. Tate 216 Jordaine y. Lashbrooke 14 Joseph V. Salomon 465 Joseph V. Soloman 12 Joslin V. Miller 643 Josselyn v. Lacier 186 Joy V. Dief endorf 393 Joyce V. Wing Yet Lung 579 Judah V. Harris 194 Judd V. Dennison 275 Judd V. Seaver 431 Judge V. Braswell 108, 117 Judson V. Adams 105 Juillard v. Chaffee 260 Julian V. Calkins 364 Junge V. Bowman 97 Jurgensen v. Carisen 441 Justh V. Nat. Bank of Common- wealth 28'8, 307 K. Kahn v. Walton 633 Kahnweiler v. Anderson 580 Kaiser v. Fendrick 119 Kalfus V. Watts 25 Kamm v. Holland 413 Kanaga v. Taylor 641 Kane v. Robertson 606 Kaskaskia Bridge Co. v. Shannon. 225 226 Kasson v. Smith 369 Katzenberger v. Aberdeen 154 Kauffman v. Robey 369 Kayser v. Hall 224 Kean v. Davis 90, 94, 95, 97 Keane v. Baysott 43 Kearney v. King 14 Keddell v. Ford 470 Keddiek v. Jones 643 Keefe v. Vogle 292 Keeler v. Bartine 519, 554 Keerl v. Bridges 128 Keesling v. Watson 302 Keidan v. Winegar 94, 95 Keiser v. State 105 Keith V. Hobbs 285 Keith V. Jones 193 Keller v. Schmidt 377, 378 Kelley v. City of Brooklyn 134 Kelley v. Greenough 601 Kelley v. Hemingway. . 176, 179, 219 Kelley v. Milan 155 Kellogg V. Barton 313 Kellogg V. Curtis 250, 378, 394 397 PAGE. Kellogg V. Lawrence 607 Kellogg V. Schaake 362," 364 Kellogg V. Steiner 377 Kelly V. Alabama & C. R. Co. . . . 133 Kelly V. Bronson 187 Kelly V. Brown 629 Kelly V. Burroughs 430, 436, 437 554 Kelly V. Crawford , . 132 Kelly V. Ferguson 189 Kelly V. Ford 397 Kelly V. Mayor 156 Kelly V. Mayor, etc., of Brooldyn, 186 Kelly V. Smith 645 Kelly V. Theiss 442 Kelman v. Calhoun 392 Kelty V. Second Nat. Bank. 538, 632 Kemp V. Klaus 207 Kemp V. MeCormiek 164 Kendal v. Talbott 210 Kendall v. Galvin 409 Kendall v. Life Assur. Soc 539 Kendall v. Robertson 380 Kendrick v. Crowell 296 Kendrick v. Neisz 43, 52 Kennedy v. Geddes 37, 598, 601 Kennedy v. Goodman 301 Kennedy v. Graham 165 Kennedy v. Knight 102 Kennedy v. Moore 560 Kennedy v. State 567 Kennedy v. Thomas 473 Kennon v. McRea 519, 547 Kenny v. Hinds 188 Kentucky Bank v. Floyd 548 Kentucky Com. Bank v. Barks- dale 642, 649 Kenworthy v. Sawyer 427 Kenyon v. Williams 84, 97 Kern v. Hazlerigg 319 Kernochon v. Durham 362, 364 Kessel v. Albertis 299 Ketchum v. City of Buffalo 151 Ketehum v. Duncan 38 Ketchum v. Govin 376 Ketchum v. Scribner 294 Keuka College v. Ray 284 Key V. Knott 567 Keyes v. Fenstermaker 210, 503 Keyes v. Waters 333 Keyes v. Winter.. 471, 472, 521, 522 Keys V. Lardner 265 Kidder v. Harrobin 392 Kidder v. Page 119 Kiff V. Weaver 282 Kilgore v. Bulkley, 27, 426, 478, 499 Kilgore v. Rich 47 Killam v. Sehoeps 176 Kilpatriek v. Home Building & Loan Assn 630 Kimball v. Bryan 464, 465 Ix Table of Oases Cited. PAGE. Kimball v. Cleveland 145 Kimball v. Donald 578 Kimball v. Huntington. . 18, 25, 172 174, 242, 302 Kimball v. Whitney 354 Kimball County v. MelloB. . 218, 237 Kimmel, In re 55 ■Kimmel v. Weil 448, 470 King V. Bickley 500 King V. Crowell 458 King (The) v. Ellor 174 King V. Plemming 255 King V. Griggs 490, 514 King V. Hamilton 194 King V. Handy 88 King V. Holmes 455 King V. Hurley 499 King V. Johnson 298 King V. King 323 King V. Paddock 63 King V. Parks 314 King V. Khea 167 King V. Sarria 641 King V. Sparks 82 King V. Thorn 73 Kingsbury v. Ellis 296 Kingsbury v. Wall 176 Kinkel v. Harper 386 Kinne v. Ford 258 Kinney v. Kruse 389, 395, 397 Kinney v. Lee 187 ■Kinnon v. Weippert 64 Kinsley v. Robinson 527 Kinsman v. Birdsell 242 Kinyon v. Wohlford 261 Kinzie v. City of Chicago 280 Kircher v. Sprenger 291 Kirk V. Dodge County Mut. Ins. i Co 176 Kirkman v. Bank of America . . . 257 Kiikpatrick v. McCullough. 193, 456 Kirkpatrick v. Muirhead 289 Kirkpatrick v. Taylor 282 Kirksey v. Bates 612 Kirtland v. Wanzer 613 Kirkwood v. First Nat. Bank. 178, 193 200, 211 Kirseher v. Conklin 434, 554 Kitchen v. Loudenback .... 306, 372 Kitchen v. Place 250, 251 Kittle V. De Lameter 379 Klauber v. Biggerstaff. . . 27, 191, 193 Kleckner v. Klapp 401 Klein v. Currier 416 Kline v. L'Amoureaux 45 Kline v. Bank of Tescott ... 94, 95 Knapp V. Lee 369 Knapp V. McBride 109, 124 Knapp V. Eunals 521 Kneass v. Schuylkill Bank 286 PAGB. Kneeland v. Braintree St. E. Co. 133 135 Kneeland v. Miles 534 Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co. v. Pendleton 465, 527 Knight V. Gregg 298 Knight V. Kenney 388 Knight V. Knight 57 Knight V. Pugh 392, 397 Knighton v. Curry 314 Knipper v. Chase 181, 237 Knott V. Tidyman 369 Knott V. Venable 507, 632 Knotts V. Preble 299 Knowles v. Parker 279 Knox V. Buflfinton Ill Knox V. Eden Musee Co 39 Knoxville Nat. Bank v. Clark... 251 Koch V. Branch 188 Koehler v. Dodge 389 Kolm V. Consolidated Butter & Egg Co 417 Konig V. Bayard 621, 625 Koontz V. Nabb 64 Kost V. Bender 390 Kottwitz V. Alexander 464 Kracht v. Obst 276 Kramer v. Sandford 523 Kranniger v. People's Bldg. .Soc. 94 Kripner v. Lincoln 163 Kruelwiteh v. Meltener 311, 388 Krupfer v. Galena Bank 465 Krebs v. O'Grady 63, 67 Kuhl V. Gaily Universal Press Co. 298 Kuntz V. Tempel 478 Kupper V. Galena Bank. 404, 464, 519 Kyle V. Green 472, 518 L. Laber v. Steppacher 366 Lackey v. Miller 193 Laclede Bank v. Shuler 579 Lacy V. Dubuque Lumber Co. . . . 92 Ladd V. Baker 267 Ladd V. Kenny 519 Lafayette Nat. Bank v. Eingel ... 28 La Fayette Bank v. State Bank . . 145 Laflin, etc.. Powder Co. v. Sinshei- mer 94 Lagouda Nat. Bank v. Portner . . 298 379 Lagrue v. Woodruff 600 Laird v. Arnold 72 Laird v. State 29, 194 Lake v. Hastings 326 Lake v. Eeed 372, 373 Lake Shore Nat. Bank v. Butler Colliery Co 489 Lamb v. Matthews 400, 535 Lambert v. Carroll 251 Table of Cases Cited, Ixi PAGE. Lambert v. Ghiselin 514, 515 Lambeth v. Caldwell 611 Lampreaux v. Crosby 57, 61 Lampkin v. State 163 Lampton v. Haggard 190 Lamson v. Plaflf 408 Lancaster County v. Moore 59 Lancaster Nat. Bank v. Taylor.. 351 361 Land Credit Co., In re 134 Landrum y. Trowbridge, 519, 586, 592 Lane v. Evans 372 Lane v. Gobbold 17 Lane v. Krekel 359 Lane v. Stacy 432 Lane v. Stewart 472, 521, 522 Lang.v. Waring 119, 120 Lange v. Kennedy 130 Lange v. Kohne 189 Langhorst v. Doble 302 Langley v. Palmer 459 Langley v. Wadsworth 301, 392 Langaton v. So. Car. E. Co 37 Lanier. V. McCabe 124 Lanning v. Lockett 145 Lansing v. Gaine.. 116, 124, 247, 362 Lansing v. Lansing 362 Lapping v. Duffy 323 Laporte v. Landry 520 Larkin v. Hardenbrook .... 540, 541 La Rue v. Gilkyson 58 Larwrell v. Hanover Sav. Fund Soc 134 La Salle Nat. Bank v. Tolu Rock & Eye Co 94 Latta V. Miller 75 Lattin v. Yail 280 Laubftch y, .Pursell 434, 436 Laughlin.T. Marshall 27 Lavell V. Frost 293 Laverty .T. Burr 119, 120 Law V. Brinker 276 Law V. Crawford 208, 238 Lawrence v. Dobyns 454 Lawrence v. Dougherty 195 Lawrence v. Miller 515, 528 Lawrence v. Ralston 504 Lawrence v. Eussell 332 Lawrence v. Schmidt 464 Lawrence v. Taylor 80 Lawson v. Farmers' . Bank . . 487, 488 508, 509, 510 Lawson v. Love joy 53, 54 Layet v. Gano 82 Lazarus v. Shearer 94 Lazier v. Horan 537 Lea Y. Branch Bank 224 Leach v. Funk 363 Leach v. Church 128 Leaeox v. Griffith 55 Leadbitter v. Farrow 84 PAGE. Leader v. Plante 216 Leary v. Blanchard 332 Leary v. Miller 472 Leavenworth v. Brockway 649 Leavitt v. Peabody 363 Leavitt v. Putnam 205, 212, 325 332, 334, 344, 345, 348, 585, 604 Leavitt v. Simes 479 Leaycraft v. Hedden 64 Lebanon Bank v. Mangan... 28, 178 Lebanon, etc.. Gravel Eoad Co. v. Adair 133 Le Breton v. Pierce 288 Le Due v. First Nat. Bank. 365, 368 Ledwich v. McKim 254 Lee V. Balcom 173 Lee V. Buford 616 Lee V. Chillieothe Bank 320, 329 Lee V. First Nat. Bank 107 Lee V. Pile 335 Lee V. Eobinson 579 Lee V. Silleck 648 Lee V. Ware 400 Lee V. White 274 Lee Bank v. Spencer 524 Leeds v. Townsend 105 Leeke v. Hancock 311 Le Fevre v. Cartagino 105 Leffingwell v. White 472, 480 Leffier v. Eice 108 Le Flex v. Burss 105 Legg V. Vinal 458, 614 Leggett V. Hyde 105 ' Leggett V. Jones 203 Leggett V. Raymond 430 Legro V. Staples 176 Lehman v. City of San Diego. . . . 155 Lehman v. Jones 469 Lehman v. Tallassee Mfg. Co . . . 392 Lehigh Valley Coal Co. v. West Depere Agricultural Wks. 135, 385 Leidy v. Tammany 345 Leightman v. Kadetska 362 Lenderman v. Farquarson 66 Lennig v. Ealston 14 Lennon v. Grauer. . 426, 427, 572, 573 Lenox v. Eoberts 479, 507, 508 Leonard v. Dougherty 378 Leonard v. Duffin 290 Leonard v. Leonard 401 Leonard v. Mason 186, 197 Leonard v. Sweetzer 401 Leonard v. Wilde 132 Le Roy v. Johnson 127 Lester v. Given 29 Lester v. Palmer 285 Lester v. Webb . 139, 279, 280 Levering v. Heighe 46 Levi V. Latham 117 Levy V. Drew 45(5 Levy V. Peters , 521 Ixii Table of Cases Cited. PAGE. Levy V. Pyne 112 Levy & Co. v. Kauffman 312 Lewis V. Bowen 350 Lewis' V. Brehme 519 Lewis V. Harper 15 Lewis V. Harvey 415 Lewis V. Hathman 350 Lewis V. Headley 243, 299 Lewis V. Kramer 600 Lewis V. Lee 64 Lewis V. Long 390, 429 Lewis V. Parker 464 Lewis V. Perkins 65 Lewis V. Rogers 293 Lewis y. White's Bank 576 Lewis V. Wilson 244 Lewisohu v. Kent 230 Libbey v. Pierce 520, 521 Libby v. Adams 527 Lickbarrow v. Mason 34 Lienow v. Pitcaim 601 Liesemer v. Burg 541 Life & ¥. Ins. Co. v. Mechanic F. Ins. Co 139 Life Ins.. Co. v. Pendleton 12 Liggett V. Weed . , 607 Liggitt V. Wing 517 Light V. Powers 601 Light V. Scott 179 Limestone Bank v. Pennick 604 Lincoln v. Buekmaster 57 Lincoln Nat. Bank v. Butler. . 25, 434 Lincoln Nat. Bank v. Perry. 181, 237 Lindell v. Hakes 286 Lindenberger v. Beal 503 Lindh v. Crowley 108 Lindley v. Hofman 377 Lindley v. Waterloo First Nat. Bank 598, 601 Lindsay v. Chase 234, 318 Lindsay v. Price 187 Lindsey v. McClelland 27, 193 Lindus v. Bradwell 80 Lindus v. Melrose 85 Linn v. Norton 510 Linsley v. Brown 165 Linthieum v. Caswell 521 Linton v. Porter 280 Linville v. Welch 12, 587 Lipsmeier v. Vehslage 303 Lisle V. Rogers 562 Litchfield Banli v. Peck 273, 299 Littauer v. Goldman . . 355, 419, 420 421, 423 Little V. Duncan 47 Little V. Ingalls 552 Little V. Mills 392 Little V. O'Brien 234, 348 Little V. Phenix Bank 193 Little V. Riley 642 Little V. Slackford 174 PAGE. Little V. Weston 401 Littlehale v. Maberry 501 Livermore v. Blood 369 Livingston v. Bain 280 Livingston v. Gaussen 72 Livingston v. Hartie 116, 123 Livingston v. Roosevelt .... 113, 116 119, 120, 123 Lizardi v. Cohen 645 Llewellyn v. Winckworth 82 Lloyd V. Jewell 274 Lloyd V. Oliver 226 Lloyd V. Sigourney 333 Lloyd V. Thomas 129, 132 Lobdell V. Baker.. 334, 355, 420, 422 Lock V. Tulford 361 Locke V. Leonard Silk Co 329 Locke V. Smith 49 Loekett v. Howze 428 Lookwood V. Crawford 448, 458 506, 548, 549 Lookwood V. Jessup 229 Lodge V. Phelps 649 Loftus V. Clark 176 Loftus V. Maloney 278 Lombard v. Chicago Sinai Con- gregation 89 London Chartered Bank of Aus- tralia V. White 307 London Sav. Fund Soc. v. Hagers- town Sav. Bank 28 Long V. Bank of Cynthiana 532 Long V. Carter 116 Long V. Colburn 88, 146 Lond V. Crawford 391 Long V. Straus 170, 173 Long V. Thayer 400, 535 Long V. Long 380 Lonsdale v. Brown 12 Lonsell v. Gage 343 Lookout Bank v. Aull 340 Loomis V. Marshall 105 Loomis V. Mowry. 215 Loomis V. Ruck 176 Loose V. Loose 519 Lord V. Advent Chris. Soc 607 Lord V. Appleton 391, 489, 516 Lord V. Moody 402, 516 Loring v. Sumner 283, 287 Losee v. Bissell 360 Loud V. Merrill 507, 613 Lough V. Bragg 280 Loughbridge v. Wilson 536 Louisiana State Bank v. Dumar- trait 490 Louisville Banking Co. v. Eisen- man 136 Louisville Banking Co. v. How- ard 217 Louisville City R. Co. v. Louis- ville 158 Table of Cases Cited. Jxiii PAGE. Xouisville, E. & St. L. R. Co. v. Caldwell 222, 302, 303 Love V. Moynehan 63, 64 Lovejoy v. Inhabitants of Fox- craft 148, 158 liovell V. Evertson 327 Low V. Howard 519 Lowden v. Schoharie County Bank 250, 251 Lowe V. Bliss 202 Lowe V. Murphy 25 Lowell V. Lewis 286 Loweree v. Babcock 384 Lowery v. Scott 514 Lowery v. Steward 187, 580 Lowney v. Perham 548 Lowrie v. Junkel 23, 225 Lowry v. Steele. 525 Lucas V. Byrne 234, 318, 327 Lucas V. Pitney 133, 138, 144 Luce V. Shoff. 477 Lucker v. Iba 371 Luddington v. Thompson 524 Luke V. Fisher 281 Lumberman's Bank v. Pratt 129 Luning v. Brady 69 Luning v. Wise 82, 452 Lunt V. Bank of North America. 637 Luqueer v. Prosser 25, 173 Lusk V. Smith 129 Luttrell V. State 566 Lyell V. La Peer County 444 Lynch v. Goldsmith 27, 28, 211 Lynch v. Kirby 72 Lynch v. Reynolds 545 Lynchburg Nat. Bank v. Scott . . 298 Lynel v. Johnson 46 Lynn First Nat. Bank v. Smith. 488 Lyon y. Adamson 158 Lyon V. Ewings 318, 327 Lyon V. Marshall 229, 230 Lyon V. Martin 239 Lyon V. Mitchell 296 Lyon V. Summers 354 Lyon, Potter & Co. v. First Nat. Bank 136 Lyons v. Divelbis 356, 424 Lyons v. Miller 84, 334, 426 Lysaght v. Bryant 22 M. Maas V. Chatfield 386 Maber v. Massias 244 Mace y. Heath 108 Macilvaine v. Bradley 525 Macine Nat. Bank v. National City Bank 636 Mackay v. Judkins 515 Mackey v. Basil 252 Mackey v. St. Mary's Church. 75, 244 PAGE. Macklin v. Crutcher 127 Macleod v. Snee 182 Maclin v. Burroughs 64 Macloon v. Smith 478 Macy T. Kendall 310 Maddox v. Duncan 411 Madison, etc., R. Co. v. Norwich Savings Soc 137 Madison Square Bank v. Pierce . . 553 Maifet v. Leuckel 127 Magee v. Badger 397 Magee v. Dunbar 491 Magruder v. Bank of Washington. 469 Magruder v. McCandlis 94 Magruder v. Union Bank. . . . 442, 443 457, 461 Mahaiwe Bank v. Douglas 250 Mahon v. Sawyer 255 Mahoney v. Fitzpatriek 216, 218 Mahony Mining Co. v. Anglo-Cal. Bank 133 Maiben v. Bobe 64 Maiden v. Webster 267 Main v. Hilton 23, 225 Maine Mile Track Assn. v. Ham- mond 379 Maine Trust Co. v. Butler 320 Mainer v. Reynolds 317 Maitland v. Citizens' Nat. Bank. 311 369 Makepeace v. Harvard College. . 180 Makepeace v. Moore 75 Malbon v. Southard 78 Magoun v. Walker 443, 452 Maiden Bank v. Baldwin 455 Mamourieux v. Hewitt 320 Manchester v. Braender 404 Manchester Bank v. Fellows 488 496, 510 Manchester Bank v. White 508 Mandeville V. Welsh 303, 579 Manghan v. Burn's Estate 58 Manhajttan Brass- Co. y. Thomp- son 64 Manistee Nat. Bank v. Seymour. . 302 304 Mann v. Chandler 89, 146 Mann v. Smyser 97 Manney v. Coit 444 Manning v. Johnson 54 Manufacturers' Bank v. Thomp- son 541 Manufacturers & Mechanics' Bank v. St. John 239 Manufacturers & Mechanics' Bank V. Winship 109, 125 Manufacturers & Merchants' Bank V. Follett 84 Manufacturers & Traders' Bank V. Hazard 505, 56& Ixir Table of Cases Cited. PAGE. Manufacturers & Traders' Bank V. Love 86 Manwell v. Briggs 348 Maples V. Traders' Deposit Bank. 471 521 Marble v. Grant 297 Marine & Fire Ins. Co. v. Tincker. 190 Marine Bank v. Clements 371 Marine Bank v. Smith 523 Marine Bank of New York v. Clements 144 Marine Nat. Bank v. National City Bank 575 Marion County Comrs. v. Clark. . 388 Marion & M. K. Co. v. Hodge 226 Marion Nat. Bank v. Phillips 440 466 Marion Sav. Bank v. Dunkin 402 Market Bank v. Hartshorne 307 Mlarket & Fulton Nat. Bank v. Sargent : 252, 394 Markey v. Corey 320 Markland v. MeDaniels 472, 522 Marks v. First Nat. Bank 311 Marme v. U. S. Bank 499 Marr v. Johnson 276 Marrett v. Equitable Ins. Co 198 Marrlgan v. Page 25 Marsden v. Soper 239 Marsh v. Barr 504, 514 Marsh v. Chown 285 Marsh v. Fulton County 158 Marsh v. Gold 112 Marsh v. Huntington 63 Marsh v. Low 311, 407 Marsh v. Marshall 362, 364 Marsh v. Thompson Nat. Bank. . 119 Marshall v. Clary 607 Marshall v. Drescher 251 Marshall v. Mitchell. ,. . 472, 522, 523 Marshall v. Kutton 64 Marshall Nat. Bank v. Baltimore First Nat. Bank 636 Marshall Nat. Bank v. O'Neal... 137 Marskey v. Turner 280 Marston v. Allen 258 Martin v. Bartow Iron Works. . 273 275 Martin v. Bollenbaugh 296 Martin v. Brown 500, 613 Martin v. Byrom 53 Martin v. Chaunfcry 189 Martin v. Cole 99, 326, 335 405, 428 Martin v. Foster 301, 303 Martin v. Hayes 352 Martin v. Home Bank 632 Martin v. IngersoU 554 Martin v. Martin 262 Martin v. Mayo 53 Martin v. Miller 246 PAGE. Martin v. Muncy 108- Martin v. Niagara Falls Paper Mfg. Co 137 Martin v. Perqug 472 Martin v. Shumatte 176 Martin v. Smith 94 Martin v. Stone 242 Martin v. Winslow 448 Martindale y. Hudson 303 Marvel v. Phillips 72 Marvin v. McCuUum 255, 256 Marvine v. Hymers 144 Maryland Fertilizilig & Mfg. Co. V. Newman , 17, 208 Mason v. Barflf ,,.. 603 Mason v. Dousay..., 12, 14, 594 595, 641 Mason v. Frick 37, 38, 244 Mason v. GraflF ., . . , 607 Mason v. Hunt ,., 597 Mason v. Metcalf 178 Massey v. Turner 267 Massey v. Wallace 294 Massman v. Holscher 260 Masterson v. Grubba 381 Materne v. Horwitz 295 Mathes v. Cameron 156 Matson v. Alley 369, 390 Matson v. Blossom 375 Matteson v. Moulton 602 Matteson v. Nathanson 129 Matthew v. McStea 69 Matthews v. Allen , . 518, 519 Matthews v. Crosby 176 Matthews v. Dubuque Mattrass Co 97 Matthews v. Houghton .... 195, 241 Matthews v. Poythress 359 Matthey v. Gaily 525 Matthieson v. McMahon 59 Matthis v. Town of Cameron . . . 188 Matthison v. Hanks 277, 297 Mattingly v. Roach 38 Mattison v. Marks 216, 218 Mattix V. Leach 532 Mattoon v. McDaniel 362 Mauldin v. Branch Bank ... 119, 393 Maule V. Crawford 222 MauU V. Vaughn 291 Mauney v. Coit 131, 524 Maux Ferry Gravel Boad Co. v. Barnegan 225 Maxwell v. Agnew 27 Maxwell v. Brain 500 Maxwell v. Planters' Bank 145 Maxey v. Strong 129 May V. Boisseau 524 May V. Hewitt 94, 97 May V. Kelly ; 90,621 May V. Western Union Tel. Co. . . 87 Mayberry v. Sainton 11& Table of Cases Cited. Ixv PAGE. bury V. Morris 307 Mayer v. Heidelbach 289, 307 Mayer v. Mode 360 Mayer v. Old 403 Mayfield v. Turner 105 Mayhew v. Prince 598 Mayor v. Inman 156 Mayor (The) v. Ray 152, 154 Mayor, etc., of Baltimore v. Mus- grave 158 Mayor of Nashville v. Ray ..... 148 McAleer v. Angell 158 McAllister v. Reab 375 McAllister v. Smith 613 McAlpin V. Wingard 365 McAlidrew v. Radway 613, 614 McArthur v. McLeod 250 McCall V. Corning 426 MeCall V. Taylor 163 McCallum v. Driggs 261 McCandless v. Belle Paine Can- ning Co 97 McCandless v. Hadden 407 McCandlish v. Cruger 16 McCann v. Lewis 391, 397 McCarthy v. Roots 430 McCartney v. Smalley 189 McCariaiey v. Wilson 296 MeCarty v. Frazer 78 McCarty v. Roots 346, 554 McCaughey v. Smith 564 MeCauley v. Billenger 284 McCauley v. Gordon 565 McCauts V. Wells 34 MeClain v. Davis 383 McClain v. Weidemyer 353 McClellan v. Bishop 463 McClellau v. Clark 470 McClellan v. Reynolds 93 McClelland v. Norfolk Southern Co 221 McClure v. Central Trust Co... 420 McClure v. Livermore 90 McClure v. Mansell 62 McCorkle v. Miller 361 McCormack Maeh. Co. v. Jacob- son 302 McCormiek v. Hickey 225 McCormick v. Little 57, 59 MeCormick v. Stockton & T. C. R. Co 141 MeCormick v. Trotter 193 MeCormick v. Walker 52, 53 McCowin V. Cubbison 129, 132 McCoy V. Farmer 477 McCoy V. Green 208 McCoy V. Loekwood 251 MeCracken v. San Francisco .... 80 McCrady v. Brisbane 72 MeCrum v. Corby 349 McCrununen v. McCrummen. 467, 504 y PAGE. MoCullough V. Cook 441 McCuUough V. McKee 84 McCuUough V. Moss 139 McCune v. Belt 436 McDaniel v. Maxwell 579 McDaniell v. Whitsett 565 McDonald V. Aufdengarten 397 McDonald v. Bailey 234 McDonald v. Johnson 306, 376 McDonald v. Laughlin 340. McDonald v. Magruder .... 436, 554 McDonough v. Heyman 167 McDowell V. Bank of Wilmington. 548 McDuffie V. Dame 363 McElroy v. Horse Co 142 McElven v. Sloan 290 McEvers v. Mason 600 McFarland v. Pico 451, 613 McFarland v. Sikes 259 McFarlin v. Stinson 72 MeGan v. Marshall . ; 46 McGee v. Prouty 392, 402 McGill V. McGill 72 McGill V. Ott 481 McGowan v. Batik of Kentucky. . 442 McGowen v. West 18, 25, 173 McGarvey v. Hale 354, 388 McGrath v. Barnes 74 McGrath v. Clark. . 250', 251, 252, 563 McGruder v. Union Bank 48® McGurk V. Huggett 436, 554 McHenry v. Davies 64 McHugh V. County of Schuykill. 569 Mclnerney v. Lindsay ..; 551 Melntire v. Preston ....... 138, 333' Mcintosh V. Lytle 233 Mcintosh-Huntington Co. v. Rice. 387' Mclutyre v. Michigan State Ins. Co 441 McKea v. Boswell 454, 468 MeKee v. Purnell 59 McKee v. Ward 5S McKeen v. Northampton County. 39 McKell V. Merchants' Nat. Bank. 66 McKelvey v. Tait 285 McKinney v. Harter 230 McLain v. Lohr 363 McLean v. Clydesdale Bank 28 McLellan v. Robe 90 McLelland v. Norfolk 'So. R. Co. . . 38 McLemore v. Hawkins 540 MeLemore v. Powell. . . 548, 549, 550 McMahon V. Thomas 3.. 376 McManus v. Smith 108 McMasters v. Dunbar 370 McMillan v. Peacock 64 McMillan v. Richards 27 McMinn v. Richmonds... 46, 47, 48 McMuller v. McKenzie 124 McMurchey v. Robinson 480 McNamara v. Gargett 296, 369 Ixvi Table of Cases Cited. PAGE. McNeelly v. Patchin 436 MoNeil V. Knott 427 McNeil V. Shoeber, etc., Llth. Co. 90 McNeil V. Wyatt 511 MePhetrea v. Halley 519 MePhillips v. Jones 417 McQuewans v. Hamlin 119 MoSherry v. Brooks 344 McSparran v. Neeley 62, 242 248, 384 MeVey v. Ely 558 MeWhirt v. McKee 95 MoWilliams v. Elder 105 Meacham v. Dow 296 Mead v. Engs. 488, 495, 496, 498, 507 Mead v. Hughes 63 Mead v. Keller 134 Mead v. Small 346, 522 Mead v. Stegall 56 Meadar v. Dollar Sav. Bank 211 Meadowcraft v. Walsh 391 Meads v. Merchants' Bank.. 288, 635 Means v. Robinson 54 Means v. Swormstedt ....... 86, 90 Meira v. Graham 263 Mechanics' Bank v. Bank of Co- lumbia 99, 147 Mechanics' Bank v. Griswold . . . 523 Mechanics' Bank v. Hasard .... 553 Mechanics' Bank v. Livingston .. 276 407, 410 Mechanics' Bank v. N. Y. & N. H. R. R. Co 35, 39, 384 Mechanics' Bank v. Stale Bank . . 634 Mechanics'. .Bank v. Straiton . . . 222 233, 317 Mechanics' Bank v. Yager 596 Mechanics, etc., Assn. v. New York, etc., Co. 102, 137, 138, 311, 385 Mechanics & Farmers' Bank v. Gibson 475, 478 Mechanics & Farmers' Bank v. Schuyler 241, 249 Mechanics & Farmers' Bank v. Wixson 292 Mechanics & Traders' Nat. Bank V. Crow 397 Mecomey v. Stanley 414 Meeeh v. Smith 87 Meehan v. Valentine 106 Megee v. Badger 372 Megginson v. Harper 229 Mehlberg v. Tisher 175, 464 Meise v. Newman 496, 614 Melahotte v. Teasdale 26, 172 Melledge v. Boston Iron Co 97 142, 269 Mellen V. Moore 95 Mellen v. Whipple 579 Mellish V. Rawdon 588 Meltzer v. Doll 293 PAGE. Mendenhall v. Gately 641, 647 Mercantile, Bank v. Cox 125 Mercantile Bank v. McCarthy . . 489 Mercein v. Andrus 119 Mercer v. Clark 301 Mercer v. Hackett 37 Mercer v. Lancaster 512 Mercer County v. Hacket 244 Merchant v. Belding 119 Merchants' Bank v. Birch 490 Merchants' Bank v. Easley.. 444, 464 Merchants' Bank v. Griswold . . . 599 Merchants' Bank v. Marine Bank. 576 Merchants' Bank v. McCall. 341, 385 Merchants' Bank v. McClellan . . 372 Merchants' Bank v. Spalding . . . 640 Merchants' Bank v. Spicer 164 321, 487 Merchants' Bank v. State Bank. 408 Merchants' Bank v. Union, etc., Co 33, 34 Merchants' Ins. Co. v. Chauvin . . 145 Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Citizens' Gas-Light Co 133, 139, 371 Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Detroit Knitting Co : 141 Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Good .. 539 Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Gregg . 353 Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Masonic Hall 396 Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Ritzin- ger 33 Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Samuel. 538 539 Merchants' Nat. Bank v. United 'States 24, 192 Merchants' Nat. Bank of Boston V. State Bank 29, 30, 31 Merchants' Nat. Bank of Syracuse V. Comstock 314, 388 Merchants & Traders' Bank v. Crowe 395 Merchants' Trust & Banking Co. V. Jones 415 Meriden Nat. Bank v. Gallaudet. 108 421 Merriam v. Bacon 536 Merriara v. Cunningham .... 45, 46 Merriam v. Rockwood 434 Merrick v. Butler 362 Merrill v. Carr 297 Merrill v. Hurley 141, 200, 217 319, 334 Merrill v. Montieello 154, 155 Merrill v. Springer 363 Merriman v. Walcott 420 Merritt v. Boyden 373, 563 Merritt v. Clason 162 Merritt v. Cole 244, 400 Merritt v. Jackson 445 Merritt v, Todd 446, 447 Table of Cases Cited. Ixvii PAGE. Merritt v. Woodbury 501 Merserea v. Villari 607 Mershon v. Withers 188 Mersman v. Werges 565 Merteas v. Withington 626 Merz V. Kaiser 234 Messmore v. Morrison 211 Metcalf V. Williams 94, 98, 99 Metcalf V. Yeaton 327 Metropolitan Bank v. Engel 386 488, 510 Metropolitan Bank v. Taylor .... 64 Metropolitan Nat. Bank v. Jones. 635 638 Mettard v. Allen 388 Meyer, In re ■ 553 Meyer v. Atkins 129 Meyers v. Bealers 388 Meyer v. Hibscher 454, 455 Meyer v. Richards .... 355, 419, 420 Meyer v. Weber 208 Michael v. Workman 108 Michigan Bank v. Eldred 249 Michigan Bank v. Eli 599 Michigan Bank v. Levenworth . . 241 Mickles v. Calvin 306 Micklewai-t v, Noel 260 Middleton Vr Boston, etc.. Works. 441 Mlddleton v. Hoge 55 Middleton v. Allegheny C!ounty. . 159 Midland County v. Broat 640 Midland Nat. Bank v. Missouri. . 34 Mifflin V. Smith 125 Milan Taxpayers v. Tenn., etc., R. Co 154 Miles' Claim 125 Milford V. Walcott 344 Millard v. Hewlett 53 Millard v. St. Francis Xavier Fe- male Academy 133 Miller v. Austin 27, 178, 211 Miller v. Biddle 201 Miller v. Bledsoe 324 Miller v. Brown 64 Miller v. Butler 596 Miller v. Cavanaugh 264 Miller v. Consolidated Bank 124 Miller v. Crayton 306 Miller V. Delameter 67 Miller V. Finley 62, 118, 565 Miller v. Gamble 260 Miller v. Hackley 519, 613 Miller V. Henry 327 Miller v. Hines 109, 114 Miller v. Hull 380 Miller v. Lamed 311, 313 Miller v. McKenzie 278, 286 Miller v. Race 192 Miller v. Miller 130 Miller v. Ottoway 386 Miller v. Reynolds 83 PAGE, Miller v. Riley •. . . . ; 428 Miller v. Roach 84 Miller v. Rose 400 Miller v. Smith 55 Miller v. Stark 562 Miller v. Talcott 388 Miller v. Thrael 540 Miller v. Thomson 15 Miller v. Way 95 Miller v. Western College of Toledo 21», 284 Miller's Estate . . 553 Milligan v. Pollard 58 Milliken v. Chapman.. 356, 420, 424 Mills V. Barney 27, 426, 576 Mills V. Carney 28 Mills V. Gilpin 273 Mills V. Gleason 148, 149 Mills V. Kuykendall 188 Mills V. Mills 296 Mills v. Oddy 299 Mills V. Porter , 348 Millward-Cliff Cracker Co., In re. 139 Milne v. Prest 597 Minet v. Gibson 232 Minor v. Bewick 349 Minot V. Russ 636 Minot V. West Roxbury . . . 148, 154 Minturn v. Fisher. . 32, 472, 477, 522 628 Miser v. Trovinger 464, 492 Mishler v. Reed 386 Mississippi R. Co. v. Scott 281 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Wright. 578 Mitchell V. Baring 617 Mitchell V. Catchings 367 Mitchell V. Conley 260 Mitchell V. Connolly 255 Mitchell V. Cross 510 Mitchell V. Culver 209, 247, 249 252, 265 Mitchell V. Deeds 141 Mitchell V. De Grand .'.'...' 210 Mitchell V. Eastman 27 Mitchell V. Easton 210 Mitchell V. Friedley 536 Mitchell V. Fuller 326, 347 Mitchell V. Hyde 234, 318 Mitchell V. Kingman 58 Mitchell V. McCuUough 381 Mitchell V. Mitchell 327 Mitchell V. Ostrom 129 Mitchell V. Ringgold 562 Mitchell V. Rome R. Co. . 25, 133, 138 143, 172, 174, 242, 302 Mitchell V. Stinson 368 Mitchell V. United States 70 Mitchell V. Wilkins 211 Mitcherson v. Dozier 286 Mitler v. Zumer sgo Mix V. National Bank 289, 307 k VUl Table of Oases Cited. PAGE. Mix V. Muzzy 119 Mize V. Grodsey 444 Mobile Bank v. Brown 191 Mobile Bank v. Poelnitz 363 Mobile & M. R. Co. v. Felrath.. 289 Mobley v. Clark 226, 527 MofiFat V. Edwards 201 Moffit V. Roche 107, 108 Mohawk Bank v. Broderick. . . . 247 464, 466, 633 Mohlman Co. v. McKane. 287, 506, 507 Mohr V. Byrne 364 Moiese v. Knapp 604 Mois V. Bird 267 Molson V. Hawley 434 Molton V. Camroux 56 Moneaa v. Stacks 434 Money v. Ricketts 362 Monroe v. Paddock 563 Monson v. Drakely 267 Montague v. Bill 539 Montague v. Perkins 602 MoHtague V. Reakert 129 Montclair v. Ramsdell 394 Montgomery v. Citizens' Nat. Bank 372 Montgomery v. Crossthwait.. 559, 564 Montgomery v. Elliott 441 Montgomery v. Hunt 372 Montgomery County v. Barber. . . 148 Morfgomery County Bank v. Marsh 512 Montgomery County Bank v. Walker 551 Montgomery First Nat. Bank v. Dawson 396 Montgomery R. R. Co. v. Hurst . . 557 Monticello v. Kendall 103 Monument Nat. Bank v. Globe Works . 133, 135, 136, 138, 139 Moody V. Findley 435, 437 Moody V. Mack 487 Moody V. Threlkeld ; . 229, 230 Moore v. Alexander 470 Moore v. Anderson 230, 342 Moore v. Britton 454 Moore v. Cooper 97 Moore v. Cross 267, 413, 435 Moore v. Cushing 436, 534 Moore v. Hall 329, 330 Moore v. Herschey 60, 375 Moore v. Horsley 473 Moore v. Maple 326 Moore v. Missouri Bank 613 Moore v. Pendleton 327 Moore v. Somerset 506 Moore v. Williams 125 Moorman v. Bank of Alabama . . 499 611 Moors V. Anderson 229 PAGE. Moral School Township v. Har- rison 103 Moran v. Abbey 533 Mordecai t. Dawkins 379 More V. Calkins 57 Morehead v. Gilmore.. 108, 115, 248 373 Moreland v. Citizens' Sav. Bank. 616 Morey v. Wakefield 368 Morford v. Davis 428 Morford v. Farmers' Bank of Saratoga 136 Morgan v. Davison 450 Morgan v. Edwards . . . 203, 208, 216 Morgan v. Reintzel 552 Morgan v. Woodworth 488 Morlong v. Bronson 441 Mornyer v. Cooper 389 Morrell v. Codding 97 Morril v. Goodenow 297 Morris v. Cheney 144 Morris v. Eufaula Nat. Bank. . . 630 Morris v. Foreman 347, 449 Morris v. Gardner 503 Morris v. Georgia Loan 369 Morris v. Great Northern Ry. Co. 57 Morris v. Husson 512, 513 Morris v. Perry 129 Morris v. Preston 234, 318 Morris Canal & Bank. Co. v. Fisher 37 Morris Canal Co. v. Lewis 244 Morris River Coal Co. v. Barclay Coal Co 295 Morrison v. Bailey.. 31, 32, 211, 212 477, 628 Morrison v. Cole 105 Morrison v. Currie 334 Morrison v. Farmers & Merchants' Bank 12, 33 Morrison v. Jewell 274 Morrison v. Stockwell 23 Morrison Lumber Co. v. Hotel Co 432 Morse v. Chamberlain 516, 517 Morse v. Clayton 74 Morse v. Green 165 Morse v. Hagenah 108 Morse v. Huntington 550 Morse v. Wheeler 53 Morss V. Gleason 362 Mortee v. Edwards 219 Morton v. Naylor 186 Morton v. Rogers 392 Morville v. American Tract Co. . . 133 Mory V. Laird 292 Moseby v. Lewis 537 Mosely v. Walker 196 Moses V. Ela 523 Moses V. Franklin Bank 29, 637 : Moses V. Lawrence County Bank. 224 Table of Cases Cited. Ixix PAGE. Moses V. Trice 539 Mosher v. Allen 353 Moss V. Averell 133, 134 Moss V. Cohen 296 Moss V. Hancock 190 Moss V. Livingston 90 Moss V. Oakley 134 Mosser v. Crisswell 312, 314 Mothram v. Mills 548 Mott V. Havana Nat. Bank. . 185, 237 Mott V. Hicks...... 89, 98, 100, 406 Mott V. Petrie 363 Mott V. Wright 647, 648 Moule V. Brown 487 Mount Pleasant Brajich of State Bank v. McLeran 462, 495 Mount Vernon Bridge Co. v. Knox Sav. Bank 454 Moynahan v. Hanaford 119 Moynihan v. McKeon 311 Mudd V. Harper 428 Mudge V. Bullock 62, 67 Muir V. Demaree 533 Muldoon V. Whitlock 128 Muller V. Pondir 256 Mullikin v. Latchem 285 Mumford v. Canty 639 Mumford v. Tolman 181, 237 Mundy v. Stephens 559 Mundy v. Whitmore 378 Hunger v. Shannon 177, 182, 183 188, 580 Munn v. Baldwin 516 Munn V. Burch 638 Munn V. Commission Co 298, 431 Murdock v. Caruthers 23 Murdock v. Mills 598 Murphy v. Andrew 405 Murphy v. Collins 643 Murphy v. Citizens' Sav. Bank... 521 Murphy v. Illinois Trust & Sav. Bank 290 Murray v. Beckwith 369 Murray v. East India Co 81, 229 Murray v. Judah 29, 32, 637 Murray v. Kimball 259 Murray v. Lardner 313 Musselman v. Cravens 56 Musselman v. McElhenny 221 Musselman v. Oakes 227 Mussey v. Eagle Bank 634 Mussey v. Scott 88 Musson V. Lake 458, 459 Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Brown 165 Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Wilcox.. 402 Mutual Loan Assn. v. Brandt. ... 281 Muth v. St. Louis Trust Co 635 Myatts V. Bell 119, 129, 131 Myers v. Bank of Tennessee. 499, 500 Myers v. Bealer 368 PAGE. ' Myers v. Courtney 511 Myers v. Turner 286 Myers v. Wells 548 Myers v. York & C. K. Co 38 Myriok v. Casey 319 K Naglee v. Lyman 305 Nailor v. Bowie 457 Napier v. Mayhew 260, 261 Napper v. Blank 442 Narragansett Bank v. Atlantic Silk Co 139 Nash v. Brown 460 Nash v. Lull 286 Nash V. Russell 285 Nash V. Skinner 416 Nash V. Towne 97 Nashua L. E. Co. v. Nutting 538 Nashville v. First Nat. Bank 38 National Bank v. Bradley.. 507, 510 National Bank v. Brewster 384 National Bank v. Connecticut Mut. L. Ins. Co 307 National Bank v. Dow 550 National Bank v. Foster 292 National Bank v. Gary • 181 National Bank v. Green 428, 647 National Bank v. Ingraham .... 125 National Bank v. Law 118, 119 National Bank v. Leonard.. 221, 349 National Bank v. Norton... 129, 130 Na,tional Bank v. Underhill 371 National Bank v. Young 137 National Bank of Commerce v. Allen 137 National Bank of Commerce v. At- kinson 139 National Bank of Commerce v. Feeney 199, 207 National Bank of Commonwealth V. Law 415 National Bank of Cynthiana v. Mattingly 137 National Bank of No. America v. angs 426, 574 National Bank of No. America v. White 311 National Bank of Republic v. Mil- lard 637 National Bank of Republic v. Young 135, 372 National Bank of Rising Sun v. Brush 273, 276 National Bank of Salem v. Thomas 127 National Bank of South Carolina V. Estell 536 National Bank of Syracuse v. Armstrong 23S Ixx Table of Cases Cited. PAGE. National Bank of Washington v. Texas 344 National Butchers & Drovers' Bank v. Hubbell 329, 333 National Commercial- Bank v. Mil- ler 330, 637 National Exchange Bank v. Kim- ball 525 National Exchange Bank v. Silli- man 314 National Exchange Bank v. Vene- man 378 National Exchange Bank v. White 250 National Granite Bank v. Tyn- dale 66 National Hudson River Bank v. Reynolds 523, 524 National Mutual Building & Loan Assn. V. Ashworth 640 National Park Bank v. German- American Mut. Waiehousing, etc., Co 135, 136, 137, 385 National Park Bank v. Ninth Nat. Bank 408, 572 National Park Bank v. Seaboard Bank 425 National Pemberton Bank v. Longee 414 National Sav. Bank v. Cable.... 183 National Security Bank v. Mc- Donald 118 National Shoe & Leather Bank v. Gooding 444 National Shoe & Leather Bank v. Herz 130 National Spraker Bank v. Tread- well Co 385 National State Bank v. Richard- son 392 National State Ba,nk v. Ringel. . 27 193 Nave V. First Nat. Bank 340 Nave V. Lebanon Bank 102 Neal V. Wood 524 Neale v. Head 354 Neale. v. Turton 134 NeWack v. Park Nat. Bank 638 Neederer v. Barber 346, 649 Needhams v. Page 327 Needles v. Shaffer 565 !Neely v. Norris 616 Neff V. Clute 539 Nellis v. Clark 301 Nelson v. Cartmel 265 Nelson v. Chicago First Nat. Bank 594, 598 Nelson v. Cowing 392 Nelson v. Dutton 563 Nelson v. First Nat. Bank 616 Nelson v. Fotterall 451 PAGE. Nelson v. Harrington 414 Nelson v. Marley 353 Nelson v. Miller 66 Nelson v. Tumlin 400 Nerot V. Wallace , 297 Netterville v. Stevens 400 Nevens v. Townsend 368 New v. Walker 285, 375, 396 New Albany, L. & C. Plankroad Co. V. Smith 37 Newberry v. Trowbridge 519 Newbold v. Boraef 312 Newcomb v. Fox 261 Newcomb v. Raynor 547 Newell V. Fisher 61 Newell V. Gregg 362 Newell V. Smith 114 New England Bank v. Lewis 474 Newgass v. New Orleans 154 Newhall v. Central Pac. R. R. Co. 34 New Hanover Bank v. Kenan ... 487 Newland v. Oakley 384 Newman v. Frost 169, 281 Newman v. King 562 New Market Savings Bank v. Gil- lett 89 New Orleans Canal & Banking Co. v. Montgomery 342 Newton v. Newton 302, 303 Newton Wagon Co. v. Diers .... 276 New York & Alabama Contracting Co. V. Selma Sav. Bank 528 New York Bank v. Ohio Bank. . . 340 New York Firemen's Ins. Co. v. Bennett Ill, 117 New York Fire Ins. Co. v. Stur- ges 138 New York Iron Mine Co. v. Bank. 81 82, 141 New York & Atl. Contracting Co. V. Selma Sav. Bank 490' New York & Va. State Stock Bank v. Gibson 578 Niagara Dist. Bank v. Tool Mfg. Co 454 Nicely v. Commercial Bank 202 Nicely v. Winnebago Nat. Bank. 202 Nickerson v. Renger 392 Nickerson v. Ruger 394 Nickerson v. Sheldon. . . 207, 238, 302 Nichol v. Bate 504 Nichol v. Steger 55 Nichol V. Thomas 50 Nichols V. Baker 378 Nichols V. Cheairs 128 Nichols V. Davis 176, 580 Nichols V. Dedrick 302 Nichols V. Diamond 595 Nichols V. Pearson 298 Nichols V. Frothingham 102 Nichols V. Goldsmith 454 Table of Cases Cited. Ixxi PAGE. Nichols V. Hunton 275 Nichols -v. Nichols 287 Nichols V. Norris . 551 Nichols V. Pool 441 Nichols V. Porter 554, 647 Nichols V. Euggles 184 Nichols & Shepard Co. v. Snyder. 47 Nichols V. Soher 115, 118 Nicholson v. Drury Building Co. 68 Nicholson v. Nat. Bank of New Castle 306 Nicholson v. Patton 395 . Nicholson v. Ricketts 125 Nicholson v. Wilborn 47 Night Hawks Burlesque Co. v. Louisiana, etc., R. Co 90 Nightingale v. Barney 285 Nightingale v. Megiunia .... 548, 550 Nightingale v. Withington 50 Nilson V. Senier 523 Nimoeks v. Woody 580, 598 Nims V. Bigelow 287 Nispel V. Laparle 66 Niver v. Best 301 Nixon V. Palmer 81, 82 Noble V. Edes 537 Noble V. Ky. Bank 502 Nobley Y. Clark 464 Noel Y. Clark 69 Nolan V. Bank of New York 635 Noll y. Qbej-hellman 548 Noll V. Smith, 376 Norfolk Nat. Bank v. Griffin. 224, 311 Norris v. Ayl.ett 543 Norris v. JBadg?r . . . .i 327 Norris Y. Crupinjey 549 Norrj§ V. Despard 509 Norrjs v. Ward 519 North y. Cape, 258 Nortji V. JForegt 38 North Bank, y, Abbott 459 North AtQhispii. Bank y. Gay 260 North Atchipou Bank y. Garret- son • ,• • , , , . , , f , , 596, 597, 600, 601 North River, Bank v. Aymar 384 Northampton Nat. Bank v. Kid- der ., 362, 395 Northern Trust. Co. v. Rogers 637 Northingtpn, , Ex parte 56, 58 Northrup y, .Cheney 499 Northuwhej-Jend Bank y. Mc- MjeMeJ. , , , , , 578 Northwestern .Coal Co. v. Bow- man . ,,,,,,,, 632 Norton y, Powner 23 Norton y, JLewis 472, 477 Norton y, .Waite 307 Norwich . B^nk y.. Hyde 252 Nosser, v. .Criswell 441 NoyelJi . y.. Rossi 541 NowAk ,y. JJscelsior Stone Co 276 PAGE. Nowlin y. Wesson 291 Noxen Y. Smith... 227, 228, 229, 586 Noyes y. Bird 414 Nunnemacker y. Johnson 538 Nutter y. Stoyer 348 O. Oak Grove & Sierra Verde Cattle Co. y. Foster 139 Oakley v. Boorman 298 O'Brien v. Jackson 72 O'Callaghan y. Sawyer 362 Oooee Bank v. Hughes. 454 O'Connor v. ClarJs 388 O'Connor v. Mechanics' Bank . . 637 Odd Fellows v. Sturgis First Nat. Bank 133 Odell V. Buck 56 Odell y. Cormack 81 Odell V. Gallup 559 Odell V. Greenly 281 Odiorne v. Howard 362 Odiorne y. Maxay 82 Odiorne v. Woodman 363 O'Donnell y. Smith 175 Offut V. Stout 475 Ogden y. Andre 144,341 Ogden Y. Astor 105 Ogden y. Blydenburgh 426 Ogden v. County of Daviess 155 Ogd^n y. Dobbin 459, 510 Ogden y. Pope 252 Ogden v., Raymond 311 Ogden v.. Saunders 32 Okie y. Spewer 548 Olcott v., Rathhone 538 Oleott y. Tioga .R. Co 134, 141 Oldacre y. Stuart 271 OJueary y, Martin 525 Oliphant y., jijarkham 298 Oliver v. Andry 434 Oliver v. Ba,nk .qf Tennessee 464 Oliver v. . Bro\7n 519 Oliver v. Houdlett 43 Oliver v. Munday 470 Olshausen v. Lewis . ...a 465 O'Mailey. y. Ruddy 66, 67 O'Neal y, .Bapon , 279 O'Neil y. Bradford 28, 178 O'Neii y. Meighan 470 Onondaga, Cpjinty Bank y. Bates. 450 ... 614, 616 Onondaga County Sav. Bank y. United States 426, 567 Ontario Bank v. Petrie 478 Ontario BaUk v.. Worthingtoa .. 594 598 Oothout y, Ballard 360, 461 Oppenheimer v. Farmers & Mer- chants'. Bank . , 207, 306 Ixxii Table of Oases Cited. PAGE. Orea v. McDonald 465 Orear v. McDonald 464 Oridge v. Sherbourne 201 Orleans Bank v. Merrill 27 Ormsbee v. Kidder 23 Orono Bank v. Wood 431, 614 O'Eourke v. Hanchett 519 Orr V. Equitable Mortg. Co 56 Orr V. Hopkins 203, 204 Orr V. Lacy 329, 642 Orr V. McGinnis 617 Orr V. Mercer County Mut. L. Ins. Co 134 Osborn v. Moncure 360 Osborne v. Fulton 210 Osborne v. Hawley 238, 239 Osborne v. Hubbard 244 Osborne v. Stone 119 Osborne v. Thompson 119 Osgood V. Pearsons 180 Otis v. Hussey 468 Otsego County Bank v. Warren. . 462 Ousley V. Phillips 81 Outhwaite v. Porter 289 Overend- 265 PAGE. Paine v. Central Vt. R. Co 368 Paisley v. Snipes 164 Pahquioque Bank v. Martin 442 Palmer v. Bratt 179 Palmer v. Call 380, 381 Palmer v. Courtenay 420, 421 Palmer v. Dodge 131 Palmer v. Fahnstock 202 Palmer v. Fuld 436, 437 Palmer v. Lee 612 Palmer v. Marshall 234 Palmer v. Poor... 255, 257, 262, 375 376, 393, 563 Palmer v. Scott 108 Palmer v. iStevens 87, 163, 164 Palmer v. Ward 180, 199 Palmer v. Whitney 393, 525, 528 Pardee v. Fish. 27, 194, 211, 442, 446 Parham Sewing Machine Co. v. Broek 129 Paris v. More 400, 535, 536 Parish v. Stone.. 272, 273, 275, 303 Parisian C. & S. Co.'s Estate, In re 243 Park Bank v. Watson 309 Parker v. Barlow 72 Parker v. Board of Supervisors, Saratoga County 152 Parker v. Burgis 120 Parker v. Cousins 131 Parker v. Gordon 451 Parker v. Greele 599 Parker v. McComber 129, 131 Parker v. Plymell 200 Parker v. Riddle 428, 489 Parker v. Stroud 446, 454 Parker v. Tuttle 368 Parker's Exr. v. Lambeil's Exr. . 64 Parkhurst v. Vail 343 Parkinson v. McKim 244 Parkman v. Brewster 445 Parks V. Duke 244 Parks V. Ingram 224, 314 Parks V. Nichols 409 Parks V. Smith 519 Parmelee v. Williams 407, 548 Parr, Ex parte 15 Parse! v. Barnes 158 Parsons v. Dickinson 521 Parsons v. Frost 303 Parsons v. Randolph 294 Parsons v. Trask 640 Partridge v. Badger 134 Partridge v. Colby 267 Partridge v. Davis 319, 320 Partridge v. Kingman 105 Patch V. Washburn 432 Pate V. Gray 265 Patee v. McCrillis ^ 613 Paterson v. Henry 341 Faterson Bank v. Butler ,....., ^ 513 Table of Cases Cited. Ixxiii PAGE. Patillo V. Mayer 15, 225 Paton V. Coit .• 396 Patrick v. Clay 265 Patten v. Gleason 386 Patterson v. Carroll 647 Patterson v. Poindexter .... 28, 178 Patterson v. Todd 212, 345 Patterson v. Vose 520 Pattillo V. Alexander 503 Paul V. Berry 166 Paul V. Joel 500 Paul V. Eider 437 Paul V. Smith 47 Paulman v. Claycomb 400, 534 Pavey v. StauflFer 349 Paxson V. Neilds 291 Paxton Cattle Co. v. Arapahoe First Nat. Bank 133 Payne v. Cutler 275 Payne v. Eden 297 Payne v. Floumoy 330, 370 Payne v. Ladue 387 Payne v. Mattox 210 Payne v. Moelke 222, 302 Payne v. Patrick 497 Payne v. Baubinek 379 Payne v. Trezevant 380 Peabody v. Bees 390 Peabody Ins. Co. v. Wilson . . 442, 460 508 Peale v. Addicks 434 Pearce v. Foote 298 Pearee v. Langfit 516 Pearce v. Madison & Indianapolis E. Co 135 Pearce v. Wilkins 533 Pearson v. Bailey 380 Pearson v. Garrett 179 Pearson v. Gooch 607 Pearson v. Howe 388 Pearson v. Pearson 273 Pease v. Cole 108, 114, 117 Pease v. Hirst 294 Pease v. Pease 83, 84, 94, 97 Pease v. Eush 349 Peaslee v. McLoon 358 Peaslee v. Bobbins 410 Peck V. Briggs. 298 Peck V. Tingley 108 Peekham v. Gilman 267 Peckham v. Van Bergen 297 Peden v. Moore 274 Peers v. Kirkham 553 Pelly V. Onderdonk 393 Peltier v. Babillion 230 Pelton V. Preseott 558 Pemberton v. Hoosier 220 Pemberton Bank v. Lougee 267 Pemberton Bldg. & Loan Assn. v. Adams 46, 55 Pendleton v. Smisaaert 311 PAGE. Pendleton v. Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co 530, 592 Pennington v. Gittings 281 Penny v. Inues 424 Pentz V. Stanton 97 Pentz V. Winterbottom 347 People V. Brown 566 People V. County 156 People V. Flour City Life Assn.. 579 People V. Hamilton County 542 People V. Hayes 294 People V. McDermont 242 People V. Eiver Eaisin & L. E. E. Co 133, 135 People V. Shall 566 People's Bank v. Brooke 454 People's Bank v. Franklin Bank. 574 People's Bank v. Jefferson County Sav. Bank 329, 330, 359 People's Bank v. Keech 459, 492 People's Bank v. Le Grand 549 People's Bank of Lewisburg v. Jefferson County Sav. Bank.. 332 Peoples & Drovers' Bank v. Craig 329, 532 People ex rel. Cotton Oil Co. v. Eoberts 417 People's Nat. Bank v. Mulkey. . . 394 Pepoon V. Stagg. 17, 25, 169, 172, 222 Pepper v. Peytavin 189 Perkins v. Boothby 81 Perkins v. Brown 274 Perkins v. Bumford 280 Perkins v. Catlin 412 Perkins v. Proud 296 Perkins v. Prouty 394 Perkins v. Washington Ins. Co.. 142 Per Lee v. Onderdonk 554 Perley v. Balch 275 Perley v. Perley. . . 243, 259, 302, 304 Perot V. Cooper 302 Perrin v. Eeene 129, 131 Perrin v. Noyes 395 Perrin v. Wilson 45, 46 Perry v. Bray 321, 536 Perry v. Crammond 368 Perry v. Friend 443 Perry v. Green 443, 448 Perry v. Harrington 606 Perry v. Mays 365 Perry v. Patterson 260 Perry v. Perry 535 Persons v. Jones 423 Persons v. Kruger 489 Peru Bank v. Farnsworth 27 Pesant v. Pickergill 405 Pesto V. Eoberts 53 Pettee v. Prout 382 Peters v. Hobbs 505 Peterson v. Homan 95 Peterson v. Stoughton State Bank. 208 Ixxiv Table of Cases Cited. PAGE. Peterson v. Vose 441 Peto V. Reynolds 17 Petrie v. Miller 287, 305 Petrie v. Voorhees 71 Petrie v. Williams 55, 371 Petty- V. Fleisehel 263 Petty V. Young 278 Phelps V. Blood 502 Phelps V. Borland 97, 546 Phelps V. Hopkinson 287 Phelps V. Phelps ; 281, 282 Phelps V. Stocking 506, 507 Phelps V. Vischer 267, 413, 417 Philadelphia Bank v. Newkirk. . 202 Philadelphia, etc., E. Co. v. Quig- ley 140 Philbrick v. Dallett 289 Philips V. Preston 432 Philler v. Patterson 311 Phillips V. Campbell 144 Phillips V. Dippo 471, 524 Phillips V. Graves 64 Phillips V. Mercantile Nat. Bank. 232 Phillips & Ebling Brewing Co. v. Eeinheimer . 485 Philpot V. Bingham 43 Phimiey v. Baldwin 641 Phipps V. Harding 443, 470, 642 Phoenix Bank v. Hussey. . 12, 450, 611 Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Allen 633 Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Church . . 305, 309 Pick V. Ellinger 136 Pick V. Hibbard 641 Pickard v. Sears 568 Piokel V. St. Louis Chamber of Commerce 292 Pickering v. Cording 224, 326 Piekham v. Macy 501 Pickle V. Muse 637 Pier V. Heinrichsoffen 516 Pierce v. Burnham 64 Pierce v. Crafts 317 Pierce v. Hakes 165 Pierce v. Inaseth 610 Pierce v. Indseth 649 Pierce v. Kittredge 594 Pierce v. Schaden 500 Pierce v. Whitney 524, 548 Pierson v. Dunlop 597 Pierson v. Hooker 520 Pike V. Taylor 274 Pillans V. Van Mierop 597 Pindar v. Barlow 367 Pine V. Smith 361 Piner v. Clary 487 Pinkerton v. Bailey 342 Pioneer Sav. &. Loaji Co. v. Can- non 642 Piper V. May 64 Piper V. Wade 539 PAGE. Pisacataqua Exchange Bank v. Carter 442 Pitcher v. Banks 404 Pitcher v. Barrows 23, 224 Pitcher v. Turin Plank Road Co. 52 Pitman v. Breekenridge 444 Pitkin V. Clayton 354 Pitkin V. Flanagan 436 Pitt V. Chappelow 51 Pitt V. Smith 61 Pittman v. Barrett 264, 265 Pittsburg Bank v. Neal 250 Pittsburgh, etc., Co. v. Adams . . 45 Pixley V. Boynton 304 Plank V. Jackson 298 Plankington v. Gorman 547 Planters' Bank v. Bradford 514 Planters' Bank v. Douglas 533 Planters' Bank v. Markham .... 460 Planters' Bank v. Merritt ...... 29 Planters' Bank v. Sellinan 550 Planters' Bank v. White 491 Planters' Bank of Tennessee v. Evans 16 Planters & Merchants' Ins. Co. v. Timstall 353 Piatt V. Sauk Coimty Bank 193 Plumb V. Niles 274 Plumer v. Smith 297 Plummer v. Lyman 598, 601 Poe V. The Justices 379 Police Jury v. Britton 135, 148 Pollard V. Bowen 470, 518, 633 Pollard V. Huflf 309 Pollen V. James 274 Pollock V. Helm 598 Pool V. MeCrary 176, 189 Poole V. Carhart 579 Poole V. ToUeson 345 Pooley V. Whitmore 119 Poorman v. Mills . . 28, 263, 367, 388 Pomeroy v. Tanner 548 Pond v. Cummins 105 Ponsonby v. Nicholson 477 Pope V. Bank of Albion 32, 628 Pope V. Nickerson 640 Porter v. Curtis 105 Porter v. Cushman 347 Porter v. Dillahunty 444 Porter v. Gunnison 124 Porter v. Hardy 565 Porter v. Ingraham 543 Porter v. Jones 296 Porter v. Kemball 471, 521, 525 Porter v. Knapp 397 Porter v. McClure 104 Porter v. McCoUum 317 Porter v. Porter 210 Porter v. Thorn 458, 501, 521 Porter v. White 108 Table of Cases Cited. Lxxv PAGE. Port Huron Engine & Thresher Co. Vi Sherman 558 Post V. Losey 562, 563 Post- V. Pearson 92 Potter V. Gracie 294 Potts V. Coal Oo 25 Potts V. -Reed 332 Powel-1 v.- -Charless 128 Powell v.- Stater Bank of Ohio. . . 496 499 Powell v; Thomas 343, 415 Powell V. Waters.. 256, 380, 381, 549 Power y. Finney 329 Power V. Mitfch'fell 470, 518 Powers V. Brigga 89, 96 Powers V. Russell 304 Powers V. Silberstein 549 Powers V. Still .■ 128 Poyrier v. GrS,Vel 301 Prather v. McB-^fly 189 Pratt V. Baptist Stfc 284 Pratt V. Beaupre . . .' 94 Pratt V. Foot 538 Pratt V. langdoii 304 Prentice v. Aehofii 61 Presbyterian Church of Albany v. Cooper V 284 Prescott V. FisTier 63 Preseott v. Flyhn 82 Prescott v.Hixon 89 Prescott v.Ward 282 Prescott Bank v. Caverly . . 411, 415 426, 427, 435, 588 Prescott Nat. Bank v. Butler . . . 427 Preston v. Cutler 145 Preston v. Missouri & P. Lead Co. 133 Prestwick .T.^ Marshall 68 Prettymaa v,. Short 334 Price V. Barker 546 Price V. Brown 392 Price V. Furman 55 Price V. Jennings 45 Price V. Jones 219 Price V. Keen 382 Price V. Lavender 412 Price V. McGoldrick 507 Price V. Neal 408 Price V. Sanders 47 Prideaux v. Griddle 487 Priest V. Way 391 Prince v. Crawford 113 Prince v. -Oriental Bank 541 Prindle v. Garuthers 179 Pritchard v. Smith 441 Proctor V. Baldwin 207 Proctor r. Cole 365 Proctor V. Lears 53 Proctor r. McCall 368 Produce Bank v. Bache 388 PAGE. Produce Exchange Trust Co. v. Bieberbach 382, 564 Protection Ins. Co. v. Bill 217 Prouty V. Roberts 376 Prouty V. Wilson 559 Prov. County Sav. Bank v. Frost. 642 Pryor v. Bowman 442, 486 Pugh V. McCormiek 472 Pulsifer v. Hotchkiss 274 Purcell V. Allemong 29 Pusey V. New Jersey West Line R. Co 477 Putnam v. Crymes 223, 231 Putnam v. Sullivan 384, 469, 566 Putnam Nat. Bank v. Snow.. 594, 598 Purviance v. Jones 255 Q. Quaintance v. Goodrow 520 Quebec Bank v. Halman 259 Quigley v. Mexico So. Bank. .... 39S Quigley v. Primrose 12 Quinby v. Merritt • 189 Quinn v. Aldrich 607 Quinn v. Dresbaeh 535 Quinn v. S-terne 163 E. Raborg v. P-^ton 275, 407, 409 Radclifife v. Biles 273 Raefle v. Moore 473 Raesser v. Nat. Exchange Bank.. 638 Rahter v. Lancaster Bank 299 Raiguel v. Ayliflf 187, 188 Railway Co. v. Sprague 265 Ralston v. Bullits 519, 526 Ralston v. Roady 294 Rand v. Hubbard 76 Randall v. Sweet 47 Randall v. Van Vechten 101 Randle v. State 105 Randolph v. Parish.. 15, 16, 225, 404 Ranken v. Alfaro 579 Rannels v. Gerner 57 Ransom v. Jones 189 Ranson v. Mack 442, 475, 478 Rasberry v. Moye 275 Rash v. Farley 299 Ratcliff V. Planters' Bank. . . 468, 469 557, 562 Raubitschek v. Blank 301, 303 Raught V. Black 548 Raviez v. Nickells 394 Rawlings v. Robson 90 Rawlings v. Rolson 88 Rawlinson v; Stone 75, 78 Rawson v. Davidson 244 Ray V. Indianapolis Ins. Co 402 Rayburn v. Day 128 Raylor v. Wilson 629 Raymond v, Holmes . . . . ; 649 Ixxvi Table of Oases Cited. PAGE. Raymond v. Mann 225 Kaymond v. Middleton 223 Ray V. Morgan 407 Raymond v. Selliek 281, 282 Rea V. Dorrance 442, 443, 487 Rea V. Owens. 392 Read v. Bank of Kentucky 615 Read v. City of Buffalo 188 Read v. Cutts 445 Read v. McNulty 202 Read v. Wheeler 25 Read v. Young 244 Reading v. Beardsley 347 Real Estate Co. v. Russell 394 Reamer v. Bell 325, 394 Reando v. Misplay 58 Reardon v. Moriarty 301 Reddick v. Jones 289, 307, 382 Reaaick v. Mickler 274 Reddington v. Lanahan 105 Redlieh v. Dall 250 Redlon v. Churchill... 118, 119, 371 Redman v. Adams 184 Red River Valley Nat. Bank v. North Star Boot & Shoe Co. . . 293 Reed v. Bacon 125, 415 Reed v. Batchelder 51 Reed v. Brewer 295 Reed V. Murphy 18,221 Reed v. Prentiss 274 Reed v. Roark 162 Reed v. Tarbell 552, 553 RpcJ V. Ireutman 311 Reed v. Wikon 460 Reese v. Gordon 274 Reeve v. First Nat. Bank 90 Reeve v. Pack - 441 Reichart v. Koerner 363 Reid V. Bank of Mobile 37 Reid V. Kellogg 534 Reid V. Payne -. 512 Reilly v. Daly 578 Reilly v. First Nat. Bank of Springfield 561, 564 Reilly v. Gerrish 414 Reilly v. Schawacker 389 RAnboth V. Pittsburg 156 Reinensnyder v. Gans ^ . . . . 284 Reinhart v. Schall 432 Reinke v. Wright 456 Reinskopf v. Rogge 61 Rembert v. State 566 Remington v. Harrington 459 Rendell v. Harriman 84, 90, 96 Renfro v. Merchants & Mechanics' Bank .<....... 27, 211 Renick v. Robbins 496, 499 Renner v. Bank of Columbia 479 Rennick v. Tighe 515 Renshaw v. Triplett 510 Renwick v. Williams 313 PAGE. Rentz V. Stanton 165. Requa v. Collins 513 Reubin v. Cohn 167 Renter v. Sullivan 291 Reynolds v. Cleveland 104 Reynolds v. Curry 55 Reynolds v. Dechaums 61 Reynolds v. Douglass 472 Reynes v. Dumont. . •. 307 Reynolds v. French 541 Reynolds v. Robinson 260' Rhoades v. Fuller 57 Rhodes v. Jenkins 426. Rhodes v. Lindley 189 Rhodes v. Seymour 477 Rhodes v. Sherrod 437 Rice V. Boyer , 45 Rice V. Butler -. 47 Rice V. Cook 415 Rice V. Goodenow 403 Rice V. Grange 281 Rice V. Grove 146 Rice V. Hogan 12, 15, 225 Rice V. Porter 187 Rice V. Ragland 184, 188, 386 387, 580 Rice V. Rice 179', 219, 272, 303 Rice V. Stearns 325, 333, 335 Rice V. Teabout 353 Rice's Admr. v. Rice 169 Rich V. Davis 115 Rich V. Starbuck 251 Richard v. Boiler 519 Richard v. Waring 321 Richards v. Barlow 238 Richards v. Bitzer 358 Richards v. Jefferson 537 Richards v. Macey 294 Richards v. Merrimack 133 Richards v. Simms 436 Richards v. Warring 319, 488 Richardson v. Carpenter 188 Richardson v. EUett 265 Richardson v. Fields 290, 291 Richardson v. French lOS Richardson v. Hewitt 105 Richardson v. Lincoln... 22, 333, 334 Richardson v. McFadden..; 280 Richardson v. Mellish 295 Richardson v. Monroe 373 Richardson v. Richardson 282 Richardson v. Strong 58 Riche v. Planters' Nat. Bank 394 Richer v. Voyer 174 Richie v. McCoy 465 Richmond, F. & P. R. Co. v. Snead 134 Riehter v. Selin 247, 519 Ricketts v. Pendleton 243, 613 Ricketts v. Scothom 282, 284 Rickle V. Dow 369 Table of Cases Cited. Ixxvii PAGE. Riddle V. Krst Nat. Bank 442 Riddle v. Gage 274 Riddle v. McBeth 491 Ridgely v. Crandall 43 Ridgely Nat. Bank v. Patton 481 Ridley y. Hightower 320 Ridley v. Taylor 123 Rielly v. Daley 637 Riggin V. Collier 14 Riggs V. Price 189 Righter v. Aleman 278 Riker v. Corley 327 Riker v. Sprague Mfg. Co 20-1 Riley v. Dickens 263 Riley v. Gerrish 267 Riley v. Johnson 250 Riley v. Schawacker 317 Rindge v. Kimball 518 RindakofE v. Barrett 191 Rindskoff v. Malone 612 Ring V. Windsor Co. Mut. Fire Ins. Co 297 Rio Grande Extension Co. v. Coby. 226 Ripley v. Greenleaf 480 Risk V. Bridgeford 466 Risley v. Bank 638 Risley v. Gray 362 Risley V. Phenix Bank 29, 323 Risley v. Smith 607 Ritchie v. Moore 346 Rittenhouse v. Ammerman. . . 72, 302 Rivers v. Gregg 46 Riverside Bank v. First Nat. Bank 482 Roach V. Woodall 567 Roads V. Webb 205, 208 Roane v. Williams 350 Robb V. Ross County Bank. . 102, 340 Robbins v. Blodgett 607 Robbins v. Eaton 55 Robbins v. Klein 539 Robbins v. Voae 519 Roberts v. Adams 251, 252 Roberta v. Austin 29 Roberts v. Barrow 129 Roberts v. Bethell 602 Roberts y. Cobb 283 Roberts v. Corbin 33 Roberts v. Frankum 319 Roberts v. Lane 388 Roberts v. Mason. 441, 443, 454, 460 Roberts v. McGrath 256 Roberts v. Parish 330 Roberts v. Pepple 124 Roberts v. Snow 207, 211 Roberts v. Ward 286 Robertson y. Breedlove 364 Robertson v. Coleman 376 Robertson v. First Nat. Bajik... 537 Robertson v. French 266 PAGE. Robertson v. Gould 29a Robertson v. Kensington 337 Robertson v. Levy 81 Robertson v. Sherwood 229 Robertson v. Smith 250 Robey v. Oilier 579 Robins v. Lyman 361, 364 Robinson v. Aldrich 124 Robinson v. Ames 465, 507, 586, Robinson v. Barber 504 Robinson v. Barnett 470, 517 Robinson v. Bartlett 415 Robinson v. Bland 15 Robinson v. Kanawha Valley Bank 90, 97, 102 Robinson v. Lyle 401 Robinson v. Perry 363 Robinson v. Reynolds 63 Robinson v. Stuart 33 Robinson v. Taylor 129, 132 Robinson v. Weeks 43 Robinson v. Yarrow 409 Roche V. Roanoke Class. Sem 283 Rochester Bank v. Gray 612 Rochester, etc.. Turnpike Co. v. Paviour 143 Rockafellow v. Peat 293 Rock County Nat. -Bank v. HoUls- ter 329 Rockingham v. Claggett 534 Rock Island Nat. Bank v. Nelson. 396 Rockmuhl v. Pittsburgh 38 Rockville Nat. Bank v. Laiayette Second Nat. Bank 263, 637 Rockwell V. Elkhorn Bank 134 Rocky Mt. Bank v. McCaskill... 109 Rodecker v. Littauer 380 Rodemeyer v. Rodman 65 Roehl V. Pleasants 280 Roehner v. Knickerbocker 480 Rogers v. Coit 578 Rogers v. Durant 29 Rogers v. Hackett 519 Rogers v. Hadley 299 Rogers v. Phillips 63 Rogers v. Priest 112 Rogers v. Sipley 311 Rogers v. Walsh 420 Rogers v. Zook 75 Rohde V. Proctor 493 Roland v. Logan. 67 Roll V. Raquet. 297 Rollins V. Stevens 118, 119 Rombo V. Metz 23 Ronan v. Bluhm 57 Rooker v. Morris 471, 524 Roosa V. Crist 31S Root V. Strong 278, 287 Roscow V. Hardy 530 Rose V. Bates 64 Ixxviii Table of Cases Cited. PAGE. Rose V. Madden 401 Rose y. Park Bank 642, 647 Eosev. Truas 296 Kosemond v. Graham 376 Eosenthal v. Rambo 221 Ross V. Bedell 395, 612, 649 Ross V. Brown 95 Ross V. Drinkard 393 Ross V. Espy 437 Ross V. Hurd 518, 522 Ross' V. Jones 545, 548 Ross V. Planters' Bank 499 Ross V. Smith 392 Ross V. Terry 419 Rossiter v. Loeber 392 Rossiter v. Rossiter 80 Rosson V. Carroll 345, 511, 614 Roth V. Colvin 115 Roth V. Crissey 426 Rothmillef v. Stein 423 Rothschild v. Grix 267, 415 Rounds V. Smith 29, 632 Rouvant v. San Antonio Nat. Bank 574 Rowe V. Blanchard 285 Rowe V. Putnam 567 Rowe V. Tepper 506 Rowland v.. F.owler 378 Rowland v. Harris 302, 303 Rowland v. Rowe 474 Rowland v. Smith 554 Ruckman v. Bryan 298 Rudd V. Matthews 570, 571 Rudolph V. Brewer 243, 564 Ruff V. Webb 175 Ruggles V. Swanwiok 273 Ruiz V. Renauld 599 Rule V. Williams 276 Rulo First Nat. Bank v. Gordon. 601 Rundel v. Keeler 46 Rush V. Haggard 173 RushTille, etc., Co. v. Rushville. 155 Rushworth V. Moore.. 428, 554,613 Russ V. George 68 Russ V. Sadler 431 Russell V. Buckhout 72 Russell V. Cook 292 Russell V. Cronkite 522 Russell V. Fblsom 102, 341 Russell V. Klink 200 Russell V. Powell 174 Russell V. Whipple. . 25, 26, 172, 209 255 Russell V. Wiggin 37, 600 Rust V. Hauselt 124 Rutland & B. R. Co. v. Cole. 340, 617 Ryan v. May 353 Ryan v. Smith 47 Ryhiner v. Feickert 227, 338, 339 S. PAGE. Sachleben v. Heintze 300 Sachs V. Fuller Bros. Lumber & Box Co 448 Sackett v. Johnson 289, 307 Sackett v. Kellar 185 Sackett y. Montgomery 350 Sackett v. Palmer , 219 Sackett v. Spencer 25, 477 Sacrider v. Brown 616 Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Wright 291 Saflord v. Wyckoff 494 Sailor v. Bushong 637 St. Charles Bank v. Hunt 210 St. Charles Nat. Bank v. Payne. 225 St. John V. Roberts 212, 521 St. John, Lord, v. Lady St. John. 64 St. Louis' Nat. Stock Yards v. O'Kielly 595 St. Paul & Minneapolis Trust Co. V. Jenks 299 St. Paul Nat. Bank v. Cannon.. 481 537 Salazar v. Taylor 242, 264 Salck V. Moss 293 Sale V. Branch Bank of Decatur. 466 Salinas v. Wright 178, 211 Salley v. Terrill ' 256 Salmon v. Hopkins 342 Salter v. Burt 247 Saltmarsh v. Tuthill 499 Salt Springs Bank v. Syracuse Sav. Bank 574 Salt Springs Bank \. Syracuse Sav. Inst 212, 408, 409 Samstag v. Conley 208 San Bernardino Nat. Bank v. Anderson 83, 89 Sanborn v. Neal 91, 94, 102 San Diego Bank v. Falkenham.. 489 Sanders v. Gillespie 554 Sanders v. Wedeking 369 Sanderson v. Goodrich 368, 388 Sanderson v. Oakey 454 Sanderson v. Reinstadler 614, 516 Sanderson v. Sanderson ........ 507 Sandford v. Mickles 132 Sands v. Matthews •. . . . 602 Sanford v. Grooheron 265 Sanford v. Moss 376 Sanger v. Stimson 189 Sankey v. Columbus Iron Works. 105 Sansome v. Alexander 579 Saratoga Co. Bank v. King 295 Sargent v. Aj^leton 546 Sargent v. Southgate.. 361, 362, 363 Sarsfield v. Witherly 42 Sasseer v. Farmers' Bank.. 499, 507 616 Saulsbury v. Blandy 601 Saulsbury v. Weaver 64 Table of Cases Cited. Ixxix PAGE. Saunderson v. Griffiths 80 Saunderson v. Judge 455 Saunderson v. Piper 262 Savage v. Ball 281 Savage v, King 67, 68, 351 Savage V. Walshe 143 Savings Bank v. Fisher 524 Savings Bank of San Diego County v. Central Market Co.. 539 Savage v. Merle 464 Sawyer v. Chambers 273, 314 Sawyer v. Cutting 364 Sawyer v. McLouth 303 Sawyer v. Vaughn 303 Saxton V. Dodge 285 Saxton V. Johnson 189, 242 Saxton V. Stevenson 202 Sayles v. Sayles 295 Saylor v. Daniels 307 Sayrq v. Frick 492 Sayre v. Mohney 303 Sayre v. Nichols 83, 92 Scammon v. Scanunon 179 Scanlan v. Keith 86, 56 Soarborpugji v. Harris 442 Soeva y, True 58 Sohackeford.y. Hooker 607 Schaefer v.. Bidwell 92 Sehaf roth , y, iWos 64 Schankel v. MoflFatt 295 Scheider v. Turner 298 Schepp V, .Carpenter 311, 313 SchiebeneQk.v. Anchor Sav. Bank. 548 Schiferling, y, . Huffman 639 Schimmeipennich v. Bayard .... 37 Schimpf V. Lehigh Valley Mut. Ins. Co 139 Schlesinger v. Arline 207 Schley V, ..Merrit 472, 522 Schmidt y._ Archer 23 Schmidt v.. Ittinan 58 Schmidt v., Schmaelter 163 Schmitz V. Hawkeye Gold Min. Co. ; . ." ; 25 Schmittler v. Simon.. 72, 73, 84, 90 188, 591 Schoaler y. Tilden 252 Schoepfer v. Tommack 349 Schoiield y. Holland 375 Schofleld V. Jones 69 Scholimier v. Schoendelen 579 School Directors v. Sippy 149 Sohoolfield v. Moon 632 Schoonmaker v. Roosa 273 Schroeder v. Turner 415 Schryver v. Hawkes 252 Sehuchman v. Knoebel 274, 275 Sehuff V. Ransom 56 Sehulze v. The Guildhall 640 Schuster v. Marsden 362 Schwartz v. Wilmer 557 PAGE. Scollans v. Flynn 299 Scott v. Baker 90 Scott V. Calkins 327 Scott V. Carruth 285 Scott V. Colmesnil 125 Scott V. Dansby 124 Scott V. Gilkey 539, 540 Scott, y. Greer 525 Scott V. Johnson 341, 371 Scott V. Kokoma Bank 364 Seott V. McLelland 37, 598 Scott V. Pilkington 598, 645 Scott V. Safford 548 Scott V. Shirk 481 Seott V. State Bank 258 Scotten V. Randolph 368, 375 Seribner v. Rutherford 36 Scrutton v. Pattillo 68 Scudder v. Andrews 273 Scull V. Edwards 22, 224 Scull V. Mason 525 Scudder v. Union Nat. Bank 639 641, 645 Seybel v. Nat. Currency Bank . . 373 392 Seabmy v. Hungerford 525 Seacord v. Burling 195 Seacord v. Miller 523, 529 Searing v. Tye 286 Searles v. Seipp 222, 354 Sears v. Lantz 319 Sears v. Wesleyan University ... 25 173 Seaton v. Scovill 207 Seaver v. Phelps 58 Seay v. Tennessee 252 Sebree v. Dorr 454 Sebring v. Rathbun 362 Second Nat. Bank v. Anglin . . . 207 Second Nat. Bank v. Basuir . . . 202 Second Nat. Bank v. Diefendorf, 37 598 Second Nat. Bank v. Hewitt . . . 376 Second Nat. Bank v. Howe.. 310, 375 Second Nat. Bank v. McGuire . . 523 Second Nat. Bank v. Morgan . . . 372 376 Second Nat. Bank v. Morrison .. 434 Second Nat. Bank v. Weston . . . 122 369, 373 Second Nat. Bank v. Wheeler ... 221 Second Nat. Bank of Elmira v. Weston 129 Security Co. v. Ball 258 Sedgwick v. Lewis 115 Seeley v. Reed 333 Seeloy, Appeal of 295 Seeligson v. Lewis 298 Seelye v. San Jos§ Independent M. & L. Co 14X Ixxx Table of Cases Cited. PAGE. Selby V. Eden 453 Selden v. Bank of Commerce .... 119 Seldonridge v. Connable 241, 265 Selover v. Snively 442 Selser v. Brock 252 Semmes v. Wilson 355, 419, 426 Semple v. Turner 415 Seneca County Bank v. Neasa... 512 612 Bering v. Findlay '355, 419 Serle v. Waterworth 73 Seward v. City of Rising Sun. . 38 Seward v. L'Estrange 130 Sexton V. Perrigo 614 Seyfert v. Edison 313, 344 Seymour v. Cowing 259 Seymour v. Lehman 349 Seymour v. Prescott 290 Seymour v. 'Strong 397 Seymour v. Van Slyck 18, 488 Shaaber v. Bushong 119 Shabata v. Johnston 290 Shade v. Creviston 287 Shaeflfer v. Hodges 431 Shaffer v. McKee 576 Shain v. Goodwin 396 Shain v. Sullivan 321 Shand v. Du Buisson 579 Shank V. Butsch 164 Shannon v. Canney 62, 66 Shannon v. McMu'llin ? 549 Sharp V. Teese 297 Sharp© V. Bingley 548 Shaver v. Western Union Tel. Co. 179 Shaw V. Camp 219, 258, 282 Shaw V. Griffith 442 Shaw V. Knox 434, 436 Shaw V. Merchants' Nat. Bank.. 35 Shaw V. McGregory 108 Shaw V. McNeill 521, 525 Shaw V. Nolan 548 Shaw V. Cutwater 376 Shaw V. Reed 454, 457, 450 Shaw V. Shaw 302 Shaw V. Smith 229 Shaw V. Stone 340 Shed V. Brett. 449, 450, 462, 463, 474 499, 507, 515 Sheffield 'School Township v. An- dreas 103, 148 Shelburne Falls Nat. Bank v. Townsley 510 Sheldon v. Benham 478 Sheldon v. Button 283 Sheldon V. Heaton ..... 25, 173, 174 Sheldon v. Hextum 643 Sheldon v. Horton 472 Shelton v. Braithwaite 499 Shelton v. Bruce 176, 179 Shenandoah Nat. Bank v. Marsh. 207 PAGE-. Shenandoah Val. R. Co. v. Miller. 580' Shepard v. Hall 374, 507 Shepherd v. Chamberlain 461 Shepherd v. Citizens' Ins. Co. . . . 468 Shepherd v. Hawley , 492 Shepherd v. Whetstone 563 Sheppard v. Spates 475^ Sherer v. Easton Bank 521, 613 Sherman v. Blackman 306, 380 Sherman v. Clark 512 Sherman T. Comatock 629 Sherman v. Goble 224 Sherman v. RoUberg 565 Sherman v. Sherman 540* Sherman Bank v. Apperson 221 Sherrill v. Weisiger Clothing Co. 571 Sherrington v. Yates 68 Sherrod v. Rhodes 444 Sherwood v. Meadow Valley Min. Co 39 Sherwood v. Roys 34S Sherwood v. Snow 108, 109 Shipley v. Carroll 261 Shipman v. Bank of New York. . 23 Shipman v. Cook 444 Shipman v. Robbins 365 Shipman v. State Bank 233 Shirk V. Neible 369 Shirley v. Fellows 444 Shirley v. Howard 298 Shirley v. Todd 210 Shirtliffe v. Gilbert 548 Shirts V. Overjohn 378 Shisler v. Vandike 569 Shiver v. Johnson 164 Shoe & Leather Bank v. Dix. . . 84 Shoe & Leather Nat. Bank v. Wood 642, 649 Short V. Blount 595 Short V. Coffeen 431 Short V. Trabue 431 Shotwell V. Hamblin 296 Shoulters v. Allen 384 Shreeves v. Allen 373 Shrieve v. Duckham 29, 499 Shroeder v. Webster 559 Shuler v. Gilette 562 Shultz V. Howard 415 Shurer v. Green 541 Shute V. Pacific Nat. Bank.. 27, 28 211 Shuttleworth v. Stephens 15 Shutts V. Fingar. .. 446, 463, S45, 547 Sibley v. Phelps 18, 222 Sice V. Cunningham 503 Siddle V. Anderson 302 Siebe v. Joshua Hendy Mach. Works 141 Sieckman v. Allen 100 Siegel, Cooper & Co. v. Chicago Trust & Sav. Bank.. 185, 213, 216' Table of Oases Cited. Ixxxi PAGE. Siegfried v. Ludwig 132 Sieger v. Second Nat. Bank. 472, 522 Siegerson v. Matthews. 472, 519, 521 Sigourney v. Wetherell 521 Sill V. Rood 275, 279 Silverman v. Chase 108 Silvers v. Fosters 119 Silverstein v. Atkinson 119 Simmons v. Morris 362 Simmons v. Oliver 79 Simmons Hardware Co. v. Green- wood Bank 638 Simon v. Merritt 389 Simonwiteh v. Schwartz 435 Simpson v. Boyard 250 Simpson v. Davis 559 Simpson v. Garland 95 Simpson v. Moulden 193 Simpson v. Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co 632 Simpson v. Turney 510 Simpson v. Tuttle 284 Simpson v. White 12, 613 Simpson College v. Bryan 283 Simpson Centenary College v. Tuttle 273 Sims y. .Hundley 512, 613 Sims V. McLure 56 Sinclair v.. Johnson 444 Singleton v, Bremar 294 Singleton v. McQuerry 564 Sizer v. Heacock 548 Skelton v. Dustin 451, 615 Skilbeck v. Garbett 516 Skilding v. Warren 369 Skillen v. Richmond 176 Skinner v. Church 386 Skinner v. Raynor 368 Skobis V. Ferge 638 Slack V. Kirk 413, 430 Slack V. Longshaw 466 Slade V. Halsted 273 Slagel V. Rust 432 Slawson v. Loring 92, 96, 98 Slayton v. Barry 45 Sleeper v. IngersoU 477 Sloan V. Gibbes 521 Sloan V. Union Banking Co 397 Small v. Clewley 302, 304 Smalley v. Doughty 381 Smalley v. Wright 224 Smead v. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. 136 Smedes v. Utica Bank 494 Smiley v. Fry 171 Smilie v. Stevens 176, 178, 217 Smith v. Allen 25, 172 Smith v. Aylesworth 360, 473 Smith V. Bacon 436 Smith V. Bank of Washington . . 474 Smith V. Bates Mach. Co 606 Smith V. Blythewood 477 yi PAGE. Smith V. Boheme 189 Smith V. Bridges 229 Smith V. Brooks 320 Smith V. Busby . . ' 354 Smith V. Cheshire 158 Smith V. Clarke 327 Smith V. Collins 108, 127 Smith V. Crane 200 Smith V. Edgeworth 304, 397: Smith V. Ellis 220 Smith V. Essex County Bank ... 537 Smith V. Eureka Flour Mills Co. 133 Smith V. Goodlet 264 Smith V. Griswold 303 Smith V. Hiscoek 389, 390 Smith V. James 632 Smith V. Janes 212 Smith V. Jones 29 Smith V. Kendall 203, 221 Smith V. Kinney 273 Smith V. Lawson 145, 364 Smith V. Ledyard 599 Smith V. Little 454 Smith V. Livingston... 372, 376, 379 Smith V. Lockridge .... 252, 595 Smith V, Loring 119 Smith V. Marland 198, 229 Smith V. Marsack 410 Smith V. Mayo 53 Smith V. McLean 454 Smith V. McNair 420 Smith V. Mechanics & Traders' Bank 370 Smith V. Miller 470, 632 Smith V. Milton 589, 595 Smith V. Moberly 252, 387 Smith V. Mohr 397 Smith V. Morrill 343, 429 Smith V. MuUett 506 Smith V. Muncie Nat. Bank.... 407 Smith V. Nightingale 198 Smith V. Oldham 353 Smith V. Oliphant 47 Smith V. Pearson 550 Smith V. Pickham 471, 525 Smith V. Poillon ; 508 Smith V. Prestidge 391 Smith V. Ralston 450 Smith V. Roach 506, 509 Smith V. Richards 292, 297 Smith V. Sac County 138 Smith V. Sheldon 129, 131 Smith V. Silence 63 Smith V. Sloan 112, 114 Smith V. Smith 26, 69j 172, 263 Smith V. Steely 297 Smith V. Stephan 148 Smith V. United States 559 Smith V. Van Blarcom 221 Smith V. Vanderburgh 129 Smith V. Van Loan 313 Ixxxii Table of Oases Cited. PAGE. Smith V. Weston 129, 393, 394 Smith V. White 381 Smith V. Whiting 77, 499 Smith V. Williamson 62, 384 Smith V. Wilson 69 Smith V. Wyckoflf 251, 310 Smith V. Young 46 Smithers v. Junker 212 Smock V. Pierson 286 Smurr v. Forman 222 Smyth V. Garden 317 Smythe v. Scott 429 Smyth V. Strader 361 Snead v. Coleman 74 Snelling v. Howard 84 Snoddy t. American Nat. Bank. 298 Snodgrass v. Hyder 66 Snook, Petition of 165 Snow V. Perkins . . 499, 500, 642, 649 Snyder v. Oatman 343 Snyder v. Reno 420 Snyder v. Van Doren 250 Soares v. Glyn 229 Society des Mines, etc. v. Mackin- tosh 340 Sohu V. Morton 471, 524 Sohns V. Sloteman — . 105 Solly V. Forbes 546 Soloman v. Turner 300 Soloman Solar Salt Co. v. Barber. 135 Solomons v. Bank of England . . 535 Somerville v. Williams 477 Sondheim v. Gilbert 379, 642 Soper V. Peck 377 Souhegan Nat. Bank v. Board- man 94,100 South Brajich . XiUmber Co. v. Littlejohn - 535 Southern Cal. Nat. Bank v. Wyatt 401 Southwark Bank v. Gross 562 Spalding -V. Ew-ing 296 Spalding v. KeUy 371 Spalding v. Van .der Cook 275 Spann v. Baltzell 454, 499 Sparks v. Despatch Transfer Co. 97 133 Spaulding v. Andrews 595, 604 Spear v. Ladd 340 Spearing v. Zacharie 25, 26 Spearman v. Ward 649 Specht V. Beindorf 220 Speckels v. Sax 165 Spence v. Barclay 435 Spence v. Crockett 614 Spence v. Emerine 238, 239 Spencer v. Allerton 418 Spencer v. Ballou 487 Spencer v. Harvey 472, 523 Spencer v. Jones 108 Spenser v. Halpern 320 PAGE. Spero V. Holoschutz 373 Sperry v. Hove 207 Sperry v. Spaulding 392, 395 Spielberger v. Thompson 292 Spier V. Pratt 596 Spies V. Gilmore 267 Spitler V. James 250 Sprague v. Fletcher 526 Sprague v. Graham 362 Sprague v. Warren 298 Sprigg V. Bank 648 Sprigg V. Boissier 69 Springer v. Dwyer 376 Springfield Bank v. Merrick 180 Sproat V. Mathews 606 Sprowl V. Simpkins 317 Spurck V. Leonard 119 Spurgeon v. Swain 594 Spurgin v. McPheeters .... 175, 184 Squier v. Hydlifif 46 Stacpole V. Arnold 84 Stack V. Beach 405, 434 Stack V. Weatherwax 290 Stacker v. Hewitt 242 Stacy V. Kemp 275 Stadler v. First Nat. Bank 207 Stafford v. Bratcher 225 Stafford v. Gates 498 Stafford v. Jackson 296 Stagg V. Elliott 98 Stagg V. Linnenfelser 267 Stainback v. Bank of Virginia.. 384 453 Stainer v. Tysen Ill Stalker, v. McDonald 288 Stall V. Catskill Bank. . 115, 118, 119 Stallings v. Johnson 550 Stamford Bank v. Ferris 102 Stamper v. Hayes 388 Stamps V. Graves 188 Standard Sewing Machine Co. v. Smith 495 Stanford v. Pruet 648 Stanley v. McElrath 517 Stanley v. MeKelrath 470 Stannard v. Bum's Admr 58 Stansell v. Georgia Loan & Trust Co 643 Stanton v. Blossom. 465, 495, 507, 530 Stanton v. Willson 46 Stapleton v. Louisville Banking Co 207 Star Fire Ins. Co. v. New Hamp- shire Bank 408, 572, 576 Starin v. Town of Genoa.. 152, 154 Stark V. Henderson 280 Stark V. Olson 207, 217 Stark V. Raney 296 Starke v. Cheesman 15 Star Wagon Co. v. Swezy 129 Starr v. Torrey 368 Table of Cases Cited. Ixyyi'i'f PAGE. State V. Bank of the State 39 State V. Baumon 566 State V. Corpening 193 State V. Floyd 566 State V. Higgins 566 State V. Kattlemann 566 State V. Robinson 566 State V. Stratton 176 State V. Wheeler 566 State Bank v. Ayers 510 State Bank v. Bartle 519 State Bank v. Bowers 405 State Bank v. Clark 409 State Bank v. Fearing. 411, 434, 572 State Banic v. McCoy . . 62, 248, 384 State Bank v. Gates 300 State Bank v. Slaughter 492 State Bank v. Smith 314, 503 State. Bank v. Wheeler 145 State. Bank v. Wilson 553 State- Bank v. Wymond 550 State Bank of Indiana v. Hayes. 12 State Nat. Bank v. Bennett 396 State Nat. Bank v. Cason 214 State Nat. Bank v. Haylen .... 359 State Nat.. Bank. v. Young 601 State Sav..Assn. y. Barber 391 State Sav. Bank of St. Joseph v. Scott 66 State Sav. Bank of St. Joseph v. Shaffer 563 Staunton v. Parker 296 Stamow V. Kenefiek 108 Staylor v. Ball 442, 469, 520 Stayner v. Joyce 562 Steckel v. Steekel 434 Steele v. Davis County 444 Steele v. McKinlay 425 Steele v. Oswego Cotton Mfg. Co. 244 Steele v. Sawyer 553 Steele v. Sellman 355 Steere v. Trebileock 353 Stegall V. Coney Ill Stein V. Passmore 255, 415 Steiner v. Steiner Land & Lumber Co 136 Stemau v. Harrison 600 Stephen v. Thompson 128 Stephens v. Spiers 375 Stephens v. State 429 Stephenson v. Dickson. 507, 508, 510 Stephenson v. Primrose 522, 523 Sterling v. Bender 234 Sterling v. Stinnicksoa 295 Stern v. Eiehberg 230 Stern v. Freeman 52, 55 Steuben County Bank v. Alberger. 107 108 Stevens v. Anderson 539 Stevens v. Beals 67 Stevens v. Blunt 214, 220 PAGE. Stevens v. Bruce 363 Stevens v. Campbell 288 Stevens v. Deering 66 Stevens v. Gregg 642, 643, 646 Stevens v. Faucet 105 Stevens v. Hannan 346, 534 Stevens v. Jackson 48 Stevens v. Johnson 274 Stevens v. McLachlan 108, 303 Stevens v. Philadelphia Ball Club. 244 Stevenson v. Austin 314 Stevenson v. Hyland 289 Stevenson v. Payne 641 Stevenson's Admr. v. King 282 Steward v. Eden 468 Stewart v. Ahrenfeldt 292 Stewart v. Desha 464 Stewart v. Elden 453 Stewart v. Erie & W. Trans. Co. 295 Stewart v. Hidden 540 Stewart v. Insall 280 Stewart v. Kirkwall 64 Stewart v. Russell 612 Stewart v. Small 376 Stiekney v. Jordan 641 Stigler V. Anderson 274 Stiles V. Eastman 436 Stiles V. Farrar 352 Stiles V. Meyer 119 Still V. Snow 300 Stillwell V. Craig 208, 209 Stimson v. Whitney 108, 118 Stinson v. Lee 452 Stirling v. Winter 72' Stivers v. Prentice 495 Stix V. Matthews 612 Stockbridge v. Damon 364, 367 Stockman v. Michell 105 Stoekwell v. Bramble 604 Stoddard v. Burton 400, 535 Stoddard v. Penniman 558 Stoekeley v. Buckler 355 Stokes V. Brown 47, 51 Stone V. Dennison 46 Stone V. French 257 Stoneman v. Pyle 207 Storer v. Logan 598, 600 Storm V. Stirling 230 Story V. Pery 45 Story V. Salomon 298 Stollenwerek v. Thacher ? t Stowe V. Weir 318 Strader v. Batehelor 176, 188 Strain v. Gourdin 637 Strain v. Wright 43 Strange v. Ellison 421 Straus V. Tradesman's Nat. Bank. 307 Strauss v. Eagle Ins. Co 134 135, 143 Strauss v. United Tel. Co 37 Strauss v. Waldo 125 'h XXXIV Table of Cases Cited, PAGE. Strauss v. Wessel 34 Streeter v. Poor 400, 534 Streissguth v. KroU 257 Strickland v. Henry 392 Strlcklln v. Cunningham 260 Strodder v. So. Granite Co 57 Strohecker v. Gohen 598 Stronaeh v. Bledsoe 303 Strong V. Poster 551 Strong V. King 538 Strong V. Hiker 416 Strough V. Gear 386 Struthers v. Blake 487, 510 Struthers v. Kendall 454 Struthers v. Smith 290 Stults V. Silva 180, 217, 218 Stubbs V. Colt 648 Stubbs V. Goodall 405 Studdy V. Beesty 504 Studebaker Mfg.' Co. v. Dickson. 369 Studebaker Mfg. Co. v. Mont- gomery 72 Studwell V. Shafter 45 Sturdivant v. Hull . . 84, 89, 95, 146 Sturdy v. Henderson 210 Sturges V. Fourth Nat. Bank. 145, 594 Sturgis V. MiUer 273, 305 Sturtevant v. Liberty 156 Sturtevant v. Memphis Nat. Bank. 646 Sturtevant v. Eandall.. 267, 343, 429 Styles V. Guy 79 Sublett V. McKinney 314, 533 Sullivan v. Collins . . . 291, 300, 375 Sullivan v. Godwin 489 Sullivan v. Langley 394 Sullivan v. Murphy 133 Sullivan v. Beadman 464 Sully V. Frean 274 Sully V. Goldsmith 306 Sulver V. Hunterson 441 Sulzbaeher v. Bank 614 Susquehanna Valley Bank v. Loomis 408, 435 Sussex Bank v. Baldwin 456 507, 508 Suteliffe v. Humphreys 473 Suteliffe v. McDowell 29 Sutton v. Beckwith 386 Sutton v. Toomer 210 Suydam v. Barber 543 Swan, Ex parte 626 Swan v. Swing 274 Swan V. Steele 107, 116 Swann v. Hedges 523 Swann v. Swann 640 Swanzey v. Parker 355, 419 Swasey v. Vanderheyden's Admr. 47 Swayze v. Britton 495, 496 Sweeney v. Easter 329, 333, 425 Sweeney v. Thickstun 208, 238 PAGE. Sweet V. Chapman 306 Sweet V. Hooper 396 Sweet V. McAllister 432 Sweet V. Spence 281 Sweet V. Stevens 259 Sweet v. Swift 444 Sweet v. Woodin 513 Sweetland v. Creigh 194 Sweetserv. French 119, 120, 263 Swen V. Newell 534 Swift, In re 529 Swift V. Bennett 46, 47 Swift V. Castle 64 Swift V. Crocker 290 Swift V. Smith 372 Swift V. Tyson.... 288, 307, 372, 373 375, 382, 392 Swift V. Whitney 27 Swink V. Dttchard 639 Swinney v. Edwards 298 Swoper V. Ross 407 Syracuse, B. & N. Y. R. R. Co. v. Collins 632 Sydnor v. Hurd 84, 86 Sykes, In re 2 Sykes v. Chadwiek 287 Sykes v. Laf eny 287 Sylvester v. Crapo 368 Sylvester v. Staples 184, 407 Sylvester-Bleokley Co. v. Alewine. 208 Sylverstein v. Atkinson 108 T. Taber v. Mechanics' Nat. Bank.. 260 Taber v. Merchants' Nat. Bank. 393 Tabor v. Miles 416 Tabor v. National Bank 307 Tafft V. Brewster 101 Tafft V. Sergeant 47 Taft V. Meyerscough 300 Talbot V. Bank of Rochester 576 Talbot V. Clark 507 Talbot V. National Bank 456 Talcott V. Cogswell 437 Talladega Ins. Co. v. Peacock. . 133 Tallassee Mfg. Co., In re 397 Talley v. Burtis 95 Tallmadge v. Milliken 119 Tam V. Shaw 427, 430 Tannatt v. Rocky Mountain Nat. Bank 88 Tappan v. Merchants' Nat. Bank. 38 Tappen v. Ely 336 Tarbell v. Jewett 78 Tarbell v. Parker 540 Tarpley v. McWhorter 400 Tassel v. Lewis 477 Tate V. Evans 82 Taunton Bank v. Richardson .... 470 472, 518 Table of Cases Cited. Ixxxv PAGE. Tayloe v. Davidson 463 Taylor v. Allen 548, 550 Taylor v. Burke 424 Taylor v. Clark 291 Taylor v. Croker 409 Taylor v. Curry 185 Taylor v. Dudley 58 Taylor v. Hillyer 124 Taylor v. Jacques 297 Taylor v. Lewis 537 Taylor v. Mayo 73 Taylor v. McLean 97, 413 Taylor v. Purcell 61 Taylor v. Keese 349 Taylor v. Snyder 459, 469 Taylor v. Surget 318 Taylor v. Taylor 558 Taylor v. Wilson 31, 32 Tebbets v. Dowd 519 Terhune T. Parrott 100 Temple v. Baker 329, 413 Temple v. Pomroy 81 Temple St. By. Co. v. Hellman. . 133 Templeton v. Poole 361 Tenant v. Tenant 642 Tenny v. Prince 414 Terry v. Allis 422 Terry v. Bissell 420 Terry v. Taylor 397 Tescher Vj Merea 317, 369 Tevis V. Young 163 Texas Land & Cattle Co. v. Car- roll 94 Thaekray v. Blackett 465 Tharp v. Connelly 47 The Mary Ann Guest 34 Theall v. Newell 334 Thicknosse v. Bromilow 113 Thielman v. Gruble 443 Third Nat. Bank v. Angell 397 Third Nat. Bank v. Ashworth . . 518 Third Nat. Bank v. Bowman- Spring 237 Third Nat. Bank v. Butler Col- liery Co 572 Third Nat. Bank v. Lange.. 370, 426 Third Nat. Bank v. Spring 213 Third Nat. Bank of Boston v. Ashworth 519 Thomas v. Kinsey 363 Thomas v. Mayo 519 Thomas v. Roosa 189 Thomas v. Euddell 388 Thomasson v. Boyd 54 Thompson v. Bank of No. Amer. 635 Thompson v. Bowne 550 Thompson v. Commercial Bank... 642 649 Thompson v. Cook 441 Thompson v. County of Lee.. 37, 38 PAOE. Thompson t. Des Moines Driving Park 141 Thompson v. Gray 287, 290 Thompson v. Ide 298 Thompson v. Ketcham 643 Thompson v. Lambert 133 Thompson v. Lay 53 Thompson v. Lee County 138 Thompson v. Low 371 Thompson v. Mansfield 274 Thompson v. Massie 563 Thompson v. McCulloi^h . . 355, 419 Thompson v. Olney 392 Thompson v. Rathbun 251 Thompson v. Shepard 388 Thompson v. Sioux Falls Nat. Bank 306 Thompson v. Sloan 189, 195 Thompson v. Universal Salvage Co 134 Thompson v. Williams 500 Thompson v. Young 415 Thornton v. Crowther 353 Thornton v. Lemon 69 Thornton V. McDonald 105 Thornton v. Stoddert 475 Thornton v. Wynn 519 Thorp V. Craig 649 Thorpe v. Peck 460 Thrall v. Newell 422 Throop Grain Cleaner Co. v. Smith. 580 638 Thurber v. Cecil Nat. Bank 370 Thurlow V. Gilmour 52 Thurman v. Van Brunt 410 Thurston V. McKown 367 Tibbets v. Gerrish 189, 352 Tibbetts v. Thatcher 302 Tickner v. Roberts 649 Ticonic Bank v. Johnson 521 Ticonie Bank v. Smiley 335 Tieouie Bank v. Stackpole... 12, 501 614 Tilden v. Barnard 90 Tilden v. Blair 646 Tiller v. Shearer 412 Tillman v. Silles 317, 430 Tilman v. Wheeler 413 Tilson V. Gatling ; 285 Timms v. Delisle 512 Tisdale v. Maxwell 227 Tison V. Howard 33 Titcomb v. Thomas 349 Tittle V. Thomas 229, 230 Titus V. Cairo & F. R. Co 139 Titus V. Kyle 97 Tobey v. Lenning 499 Toby V. Barber 444 Toby V. Burly 519 Tod V. Kentucky Union Land Co. 3«5 Todd V. Neal 12, 495, 642, 649 Ixxxvi Table of Cases Cited. PAGE. Todd V. Nat. Union Bank 313 Todd V. Wick 396 Tolman v, Janson 238 Tomkins v. Ashby 173 Tompkins v. Compton 368 Tompkins v. Woodward 119 Torne v. Gerlaeh 392 Torrey v. Grant 380 Terry v. Foss 440, 466 Tourtelot v.. Eeed 371, 372 Town of Solon v. Williamsburg Sav. Bank 559 Town of Stonington v. Powers . . 296 Towne V. Riee. . 14, 84, 181, 200, 231 Towne v. Smith 23 Townsend v. Auld 507, 516, 614 Townsend v. Derby 242 Townsend v. Heer Dry Goods Co. 454 499 Townsend v. Lorain Bank.. 486, 501 Townsend v.-Pepperill 56 Townsend v. Star Wagon Co. . . . 562 Townsley v. Sumrail 37 Townsley V. Sumrail.. 276, 586, 598 600, 613 Tracey V; Alvord 283 Trader v. Chidcster : 207 Traders' Bank v. Alsop 379 Traders' Deposit Bank v. Chiles. 321 Traders' Nat. Bank v. Rogers . . 571 Tyson v. Woodruff 292 Tradesmen's Nat. Bank v. Curtis. 276 386 Tradesmen's Nat. Bank v. Green. 220 353 Tradesmen's Nat. Bank v. Looney. 541 Traders' Nat. Bank v. Rogers. . . 168 Traynham v. Jackson 94 Trease v. Haggin 456 Tredwell v. Blount 392 Treuttel V. Barandon 333 Tricky v. Lame 274 Triggs V. Newnham 451 Trimble v; Thorne 519 Trimby v. Vignier 610 Triplett v. Foster 391 Tripp V. Curtenius 27, 211 Trist V. Child 296 Troy Bank v. Topping 74 Troy City Bank v. Lannan . . 455, 562 Troy Fertilizer Co. v. Zachry ... 65 True V. Collins 510, 517 True V. Triplett 380 Trumblety v. O'Connor 370 Trundy v. Farrar 82 Trust Co. V. National Bank 320 Trustees of Amherst Acad. v. Cowles 283 Tryon v. Oxley 84 Tuck V. National Bank 536 PAGE.. Tucker v. City of Randolph 156 Tucker v. Morrill 394 Tucker v. Pruett 554 Tucker v. Ronk 291 Tucker Mfg. Co. v. Fairbanks. 87, 96 Tufts V. Shepard . , 310 Tumilty v. Missouri Bank 252 Tunno v. L^ue 467, 495, 505 Tupper V. Kilduff lia Turk V. Stahl 477 Turle V. Sargent 291 Tumbow V. Broach 129 Turnbull v. Bowver 23 TurnbuU v. Bowyer... 233, 427, 572 Turnbull v. Maddux 519 Turnbull v. Tro.ut 339 Turner v. Eldridge. 229 Turner v. Gaither 53 Turner v. Hoyle 370 Turner v. Keller 82, 428 Turner v. Patton 12, 505 Turner v. Peacock 298 Turner v. Peoria & S. E. Co. ... 318 Turner v. Rogers 613 Turpin V. Williams 554 Turney V. Town of Bridgeport. . 158 Tuscaloosa Cotton Seed Oil Co. v. Perry ■..-... 552 Tuttle V. Bartholemew 320 Tyler v. Bank of Kentucky 613 Tyler v. Gould 637 Tyler v. Hyde 539 Tyieir V. Waddingham 445 Tyler V. Young 345 T^ner v. Stoops 12* Tyson v. Oliver 514 U. Ubsdell V. Cunningham 169 Uhler V. Browning 127 Ulery v. Ginrieh 113 Ulster County Bank v. McFarlan. 37 598, 599 Underbill v. Phillips 242 Union & Planters' Bank v. Jef- ferson 291 Union Bank v. Ezell 448 Union Bank v. Gilbert .... 380 Union Bank v. Holoomb 617 Union Bank v. Hyde 612 Union Bank v. Jacob 134 Union Bank v. Mott 166 Union Bank v. New Orleans .... 38 Union Bank v. United States . . . 405 Union Bank v. Willis.. 2.67, 343, 414 463 Union Banking Co. v. Martin's Est 293, 565, 566 Union Gold Mining Co. v. Rocky Mt. Nat. Bank 144 Table of Cases Cited. Ixxxvii PAGE. Union Locomotive, etc., Co. v. Erie R. Co 640 Union Nat. Bank v. First Nat. Bank . ...V. 145 Union Nat. Bank v. Harber 395 Union Nat. Bank v. Marr. . 530, 586 592 Union Nat. ' Bank v. Oceana County Bank 638 Union Nat." Ba'nk v. Roberts . . . 56.5 Union Trust Co. v. McClellan... 395 United States v. American Ex- change Nat. 'Bank 425 United States v. Bank of Metrop- olis ...■...-..- 606 United States v. Bank of United Statss ;. 572 United States v. Barker. . . 326, 347 503, 507, 632 United States v. Long 566 United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight- Assn. . . . ; 295 United Sfcatesv. White 169, 222 • 223 United States Bank v. Blnney. . . 125 126 United States- Bank v. Daniel . . 12 United States Bank v. Davis . . . 510 United - States- Bank v. Donnally. 244 United Statfes' Bank v. Georgia Bank 408, 409 United States- Bank v. Goddard. 488 509 United 'States Bank v. Smith . . 454 United States Nat. Bank v. Bur- ton 516 United States Nat. Bank v. Cros- ley 393 United States Nat. Bank v. Geer. 327 United States Nat. Bank v. Mc- Nair ....;.:.. 306, 307 Unity, etc., Assn., Bx parte .... 45 University Press v. Williams ... 514 Upham V. Prince 336 Usher v. Raymond Skate Co. ... 136 Utiea Bank v. Bender 513 Utica Bank v. Smith 347 Utiea Ins. Co. v. Cad-svell 299 Valle V. Cerre 599 Vallett V. Parker 124, 379 Vallette v. White Water Val. Canal Co 133 Valley Nat. Bank v. Crowell 181 237 Valley Na-t. Bank v. Urich 525 Van Alstyne v. Bertrand 124 Van Buskirk v. Day 201, 209 PAGE. Vandesande v. Chapman 473 Van Duser v. Howe... 250, 251, 252 604 Van :Ep8 V. Dillaye 539 Van Etta v. Evenson 252 Van Hoesen v. "Van Alstyne 495 Van Hobser v." Logan 196 Van Meter v. Spurrier 299 Van Patten v. Beals 58 Van Rensselaer v. Kirkpatrick. . 550 Van Staphoi-st V. Pe'arce 428 Van Strtim' v; "Liljengren . . 595, 607 Van Vacter v." Flack 188 Van Valkenburg v. Bradley. .129, 131 Van Wagener' v. Terrett . . . 188, 580 Vanee v. Ward 37, 598 Vance v. Wells 62, 66 Vandenburgh v. Hull 105 Vanderbeck v. Vanderbeck 540 Vander Vere v. Odgburn 241 Vann v. Edwards 68 Vansandt v. Arnold 319 Vansteenbiirgli v." Hoflfman 66 Vanstone v. Goodwin 38 Vanstrum v. Liljengren 276 Varnum v. Bellamy 550 Vater v. Lewis 102, 402 Vaugh V. Parr 51, 52 Veach v. Thompson 378 Veasie v. Willis 427 Veazie Bank v. Fenno 24 Veazie Bank v. Winn.. 441, 473, 632 Velie V. Titus .'. 278 Verdef v; Verder 448 Vere v. AsHley ". 80 Vergennes" Bank v. Cameron. 457, 458 Vermilye v. Adams Express Co.. 363 Vernon v. Manhattan Co 130 Vette V. La Barge 361 Viale V. Michael 489 Vickroy v. Piatt 280 Videau V. Griffin 165 Vidvard v. Cushman 558 Vigers v. Carlton 504 Vincent v. Halock 327 Vinson v. Vives 400 Vinton v. Crowe 365 Vinton v. King 361 VioUet V. Patton 250, 322 Vleit V. Simanton 89 Vogel V. Ball 574 Vogle V. Ripper ." 561 Voltz V. National Bank 533 Von Windlisch v. Klaus 376 Voorhies v. Atlee 526 Voorhis v. Jones 114 Voreis v. Nusbaum 384 Vosburgh v. Diefendorf. 373, 389, 393 Vowell V. Lyles 276 Ixxxviii Table of Cases Cited. W. PAGE. Wadsworth v. Sharpstein 57 Waggoner v. Bank 104 Waggoner V. Millington 251 Wagner v. Diedrich 386 Wagner v. Freschl ,. . 108, 116 Wagner v. Simmons 108 Wagner v. Kenner 480 Wait V. Chandler 376, 386 Wait V. Nashua Armory Assn. . . 139 Waite V. Foster 166, 334 Waite V. Harper 297 Waithman v. Elsee 26 Wake V. Harrop 258 Wakeman v. Noble 188 Waleott V. Canfield 120 Walden Bank v. Baldwin 459 Waldrip v. Black 303 Waldo Bank v. Greely. 108, 109, 124 Waldo Bank v. Lambert 115, 116 120 Walford v. De Pienne 63 Walford v. Powers 278, 286 Walke V. Kuhne 463 Walker v. Bank of Augusta 512 Walker v. Bank of State 87 Walker v. Craig 75 Walker T. Crouch 523 Walker v. Detroit Transit R. Co. 138 Walker v. Ebert 377 Walker v. Forbes 647 Walker v. Geisee i . . . 360 Walker v. Greene 538 Walker v. Gregory 294 Walker v. Laverty 520 Walker v. Mayo 297, 300 Walker v. McConnico 273 Walker v. Patterson 74 Walker v. Rogers 464, 465, 519 Walker v. Stetson. 507, 512, 513, 514 586 Walker v. Symonds 79 Walker v. Wilson 364 Walker v. Woolen 216, 220 Wall V. County of Monroe 154 Wallace v. Branch Bank 532 Wallace v. Crilley 456 Wallace v. Douglas 606 Wallace v. Jewell 267 Wallace v. McConnell 441, 605 Wallaoh v. Bader 360 Walmsley v. Child 21 Walrad v. Petrie 580 Walsh V. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. Ill Walsh V. Powers 55 Walsh V. Young 55 Walsh V. Lannan 108 Walters v. Munroe 167, 523 Walters v. Palmers 376 Walters v. Short 15 PAGE. Walton V. Bristol 67 Walton Guano Co. v. Copelan... 300 Walton V. Hastings 557 Walton V. Mandeville 594 Walton Plow Co. v. Campbell... 565 Walton V. Williams . . . . , 595 Walworth V. Seaver 516 Walworth Co. Bank v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. 139 Walz V. Albach 267, 415 Wamesit Bank v. Buttrick. . 496, 497 Wangner v. Grimm..., 350, 401, 449 535 Ward V. Allen 557, 595 Ward V. Barrows 290 Ward V. Hackett 260 Ward V. Howard 313 Ward V. Johnson 133, 378, 544 Ward V. Kentucky Bank 82 Ward V. Perrin 514 Ward V. Smith 536, 537 Ward V. Sugg 380, 381 Ward V. Tyler 553 Ward V. Venner 75 Wardens, etc., of St. James Church V. Moore , 15 Warder v. Tucker 530 Wards v. Sparks , 477 Wardsworth v. Smith 274. Ware v. Allen 259 Ware v. McCormack 420, 421 Ware v. Russell 361 Waring v. Getts 451, 458, 460 Warfield v. Warfield 61 Warner v. Citizens' Nat. Bank. . 243 244 Warner v. Commonwealth 188 Warren v. Coombs 12, 405 Warren v. Coplin 643 Warren V. Durfee 283 Warren v. Gilman 496, 511 Warren v. L3mch 244 Warren-Scharf Asphalt Pav. Co. V. Commercial Nat. Bank 427 Wardwell v. Sterne 26 Warwick v. Nairne 274 Warwick v. Rogers 541 Washburn v. Picott 274 Washer v. White 521 Washington Savings Bank v. Fur- guson 260 Washington Bank v. Reynolds.. 461 Washington Banking Co. v. King. 516 Waterbury v. Andrews 62 Waterbury v. Sinclair 443 Waterman v. Vose 499, 563 Waters v. Carleton 176, 580 Waters v. Cooper 305 Watervliet Bank v. Hoyt . . 138, 339 Table of Oases Cited. Ixxxix PAGE. Watervliet Bank v. White.. 102, 234 325, 327, 347 Watkins v. Crouch 454 Watkins v. Maule 75, 76 Watt V. Kiddle 405 Watson V. Blossom 376 Watson V. Chesire 421 Watson V. Cheshire 334 Watson V. Flanigan 389 Watson V. Hahn 554 Watson V. Hensel 46 Watson V. Lane 648 Watson V. Shuttleworth 436 Watson V. Sidney F. Woody Co. 39 Watts V. Girdlestone 79 Waukford v. Waukford 78 Waugh V. Suter 92 Way V. Butterworth.. 343, 414, 459 Way V. Dunham 548, 549 Way V. Peck 65, 69 Way V. Smith 180, 217, 218 Way v. Towle. . 29, 32, 247, 477, 629 Wayland Univ. r. Boorman. .143, 392 Wayman v. Torreyson 230 Wayne County Sav. Bank v. Low. 642 Wear v. Lee 632 Weaver v. Leseure 563 Weaver v. Tapscott 127 Webb V. Burke 94 Webb V. Mauro 84 Webb V. Mullins 557 Webber v. Matthews 443 Webber's Executors v. Blunt 296 Weber v. Christen 257 Weber v. Matthews 487 Webster v. Calden 392 Webster v. Cobb 306, 416 Webster v. Howe Machine Co... 136 137, 642, 646, 649 Webster v. Parker 275 Webster v. Pierce 190 Webster v. Wray 84 Weed V. Beebe 55 Weed V. Carpenter 122 Weed V. Van Houten 441 Weeks v. Elliott 538 Weeks v. Fox 371 Weeks v. Pryor 367 Wcems V. Shaughnessy 390 Weider v. Osborn 75 Weil V. Lange 648 Weimer v. Skelton 314 Weisser v. Denison 575 Welborn v. Norwood 297 Weld v. Savings Bank 247 Welch v. Goodwin 575 Welch V. Lindo 334 Welch V. Taylor Mfg. Co 527 Welch V. Taylor 465 Weldou V. Buck 405 PAGE. Wellington v. Jackson 166, 570 Wells V. Brigham 184 Wells V. Miller 108 Wells V. Salina 148, 151, 154 Wells V. Supervisors.. 148, 154, 155 Wells V. Sutton 277, 286, 567 Wells, Fargo & Co. v. U. S 425 Wells-Fargo Co. v. Van Sickle. .. 255 Wellman v. Dismukes 280 Welsh V. German- American Bank. 575 Welter v. Kiley 354 Welton V. Adams 27, 28 Welton V. Scott 412 Wetter v. Habbersham 66 Werner, Appeal of 46 Werr v. Kohles 521 Wert V. American Exch. Bank. . 307 Wessell V. Glenn 251 Wesselman v. Stuart 292 West V. Brown 456 West V. Cavins 281 West V. Foreman 188 West V. Laraway 65 West V. Lee 478 West V. Penny 51, 52 West V. Valley Bank 405 Westeott V. Stevens 436 West Branch Bank v. Armstrong. 432 West Branch Bank v. Fulmer 441 528 Western Nat. Bank v. Wood 394 Westervelt v. Freeh 548 Westfall V. Edwards 487 Westfall V. Farwell 487 Westminister Bank v. Wheaton.. 32 629 Westmoreland v. Davis 58 Weston V. Chamberlain 432, 437 Weston V. Hight 287 Weston V. Myers . . 170, 251, 326, 327 West Eiver Bank v. Taylor. 488, 496 503, 510, 511 Wethey v. Andrews 367, 447 Wetumpka & C. R. Co. v. Bing- ham 226 Wexel V. Cameron 241 Weyerhauser v. Dun 249, 563 Wentworth v. Dows 275 Wentworth v. Goodwin 274 Wentworth v. Wentworth 47 Whaley v. Moody 116, 119, 120 Wheatley v. Strobe 175, 578, 580 Wheaton v. East 43 Wheaton v. Wilmarth 285 Whedon v. Hogan 306 Wheeler v. Barr 403 Wheeler v. Farmer 105 Wheeler v. Field 459, 527 Wheeler v. Guild 534 Wheeler v. Johnson 22 xc Table of Cases Oi;ted. PAGE. Wheeler v. Maillot 491 Wheeler v. Miller 426 Wheeler v. Russell 299 Wheeler v. Warner 210, 446 Wheeler v. Webster 596 Wheeler v. Wheeler 77 Wheeloek v. Barney 278 Wheeloek v. Freeman 180 Wheeloek v. Winslow 90 Whelan v. Eeilly S3o Whelan y. Swain 291, 293, 294 Whilden v. Merchants & Planters' Bank . , 599 Whistler v, Forster 348, 350 Whitaker v. Morrison 521 Whitaker v. Whitaker 282 Whittaker v. Ordway 538 Whitcomb v. Joslyft 45 Whiteomb v. Miller 387 White V. Allwsird 250 White V. Bank . . , , 425 White V. Buss , 298 White V. Qallinsm 350 White V. .Continental Bank. 572, 574 White V, Continental Nat. Bank. 408 White V. Cushing 176 White y- Davis _ 301 White V. Dienger 594 White V. Fisher 533 White V. Haight 176 White V. Hass 562 White V. Heylman 354 White V. Keith 486 White V. Low 488 White V. Madison 74 White V. Miners' Nat. Bank 99 329 White V. National Bank 332, 408 White V. Skinner 87, 101 White V. Smith 177, 209 White V. Stoddard 449 White V. Thompson 72 White V. Tudor 130 White V. Weaver 416 White V. Yarborough 299 White Sewing Machine Co. v. Dakin 538 White's Bank v. Toledo Fire, etc., Co 143 White's Exrs. v. Commonwealth. 72 Whitehead v. Walker 592 Whitely v. Allen 469 Whitesides v. Cannon 64 Whitesides v. Northern Bank . . . 562 Whitman v. Farmers' Bank. 509, 510 Whitmore v. Adams 119 Whitney v. Dutch 43, 53 Whitney v. National Bank 431 Whitney v. Snyder 375 Whitney v. South Paris Mfg. Co. 470 524 PAGE. Whitt V. Bailey 293 Whittaker v. Brown 110 Whitten v. Wright 444, 470 Whitter v. Graflfam 469 Whittier v. Collins 472, 523 Whittier v. Eager 281, 310 Whittle V. Fond du Lac Nat. Bank 203 Whitton V. Swope 265 Whitwell V. Brigham 503 Whitwell V. Johnson 508 Whitwell V. Winslow 201 Whitworth v. Detroit, L. & N. K. Co 327 Whorter v. Norris 199 Whyte V. Rosencrantz 258 Wickenkamp v. Wickenkamp .... 539 Wieks V. Mitchell 64 Wieland v. Kobick 45 Wieland's Admr. v. rState Nat. Bank 29 Wiggin V. Bush 297 Wiggin V. Lewis 119 Wilburv. Jeep 363, 364 Wilbour V. Turner 317 Wileombe v. Dodge 473 Wilcox V. Arnold 62, 66 Wileox V. Jackson 61 Wilcox V. Kent 639 Wilcox V. Eoath . ■ 53 Wild V. Bank of Passamaquoddy. 144 Wild V. Van Valkenburgh 454 Wilde V. Wilde 295 Wildes V. Savage 16, 225, 596 Wiley V. Brice 607 Wilhelm v. Loop 426 Wilkie V. Chandon 287 Wilkie V. Roosevelt 298, 380 Wilkins v. Bliett 75 Wilkins v. Gillis 526 Wilkins V. Jadis 450, 451 Wilkinson v. Sargent 536 Wilkinson v. Wooten 77 Willetts V. Phoenix Bank 233, 635 Williams v. Banks 281 Williams v. Chisholm 539 Williams v. Cutting 21 Williams v. Drexel 408, 575 Williams v. Forbes 282 Williams v. Gilchrist 124 Williams v. Gillies 125 Williams v. Hall 548 Williams v. Harrison 48 Williams v. Huntington. . . 372, 394 395 Williams v. Judy 379 Williams v. King 64 Williams v. Matthews 362 Williams v. National Bank 536 Williams v. Nichols 291, 366 Williams v. Norton ,.,,-,....., 350 Table of Cases Cited. xci PAGE. Williams v. Osbon 319, 424 Williams v. Patteson 71 Williams, y. Putnam 649 Williama v. Bobbins 84, 96, 166 Williams v. Schreiber 301 Williams v. Scott 550 Williama. v- .Second Nat. Bank of Lafayette . ^ > 96 Williams. V, .Smith. 550, 613 Williams V, .St»rr 557 Williams v. XJrmston 64 Williams v. Usbon 356 Williams v. Wade 649 Williams v. Watts 49 Williams y. Williams 22, 260 Williams v. Woods 165 Williams v. Winans 594, 601, 604 Williamson v. Bennett 187 Williamson v. Johnson 346 Williamsport v. Commonwealth . . 155 156 Williamsport Gas Co. v. Pinker- ton .. .. 537 Willis V. Barrett 342 Willis V. Green 492 Willis V. Twambly 345, 539 Willmarth v. Crawford 135, 385 Willoughby v. Comstock 185 Willoughby v. Moulton 164 Wills V. Wilson " 564 Wilmington, etc., Bank v. Cooper. 454 Wilson V. Campbell 211 Wilson V. Cheshire 62, 66 Wilson V. Clements 37 Wilson V. Darue 80 Wilson V. Dostef 75 Wilson V. Foot 549 Wilson V. Hayes 560 Wilson V. Tolsoii 359 Wilson V. Jones .' 64 Wilson V. Kfrisey 251 . Wilson V. Mechanics' Sav. Bank. 390 " Wilson V. Metropolitan K. Co. . . 371 Wilson V. Miller 375 Wilson v. Powers 549, 550 Wilson V. Richards 107, 108, 111 516 Wilson V. Senier 467 Wilson V. Williams 119 Wilson County v. Third Nat. Bank 222 Wilson Sewing Machine Co. v. Moreno 207 Wilton V. Eaton 291 Wiltsie V. Northam 363 Winans v. Davis 456 Winchel v. Newcomb 445 Windham Bank v. Norton. . 467, 516 Windsor Sav. Bank v. McMahon. 202 Winfield v. Hudson 244 PAGE. Wing V. Dunn 362 Wing. V. Martel 394 Wing V. Glick 103 Wing V. Terry 533 Wingate v. Atlanta Nat. Bank . . 119 Winkles v. Guenther 562 Winn v. Thomas 297 Winne v. Whisenant 297 Winona Bank v. Wofford 23, 224 Winship v. Bass 98 Winslow V. Morton 34 Winslow v. Young 104 Winstead v. Davis 359 Winston v. Richardson 442 Winter v. Hite 72 Winter v. Poole 251, 559 Wintermute v. Post 606 Wintermute v. Torrent 330 Winters v. Home Ins. Co 311 Wire V. McCormack 355 Wirebach v. Easton Bank 61 Wirebach's Exr. v. Bank 383 Wirt V. Stubblefield 382 Wisdom V. Keeves 559 Wise V. Loeb 54 Wiseman v. Chiappella. 589, 615, 642 649 Wiser v. Loekwood's Estate 55 Wisner v. McBride 283 Witherow v. Slayback.. 402, 413, 432 Withers v. Deane 18 Withers v. Ewing 296 Witte V. Williams 226 Wittram v. Van Wormer 124 Witty V. Michigan Mut. Life Ins. Co 264 Wolcott V. Van Santvoord 454 Wolf V. Fletemeyer 297 Wolf V. Hostetter 431 Wolfe V. Tyler 193, 352 Wolford V. Andrews... 471, 524, 525 Wolford v.. Bowen 415 Wood V. Callaghan 487, 488, 516 Wood V. Carl 514 Wood V. Farmers & Mechanics' Bank 405 Wood V. Gibbs 644 Wood V. Losey 47 Wood V. McKean 365 Wood V. Merchants' Sav., etc. . . 536 537 Wood V. Merchants' Sav. L. & S. Co 481 Wood V. Pugh 625 Wood V. Rosendale 455 Wood V. Sheldon 420 Wood V. Starling 388 Wood V. Surrella 405 Wood V. Warren 363 Wood V. Waters 375 XCll Table of Cases Cited. PAGE. Wood V. Watson 499 Wood V. Wellington 329 Wood V. Wood 338 Woodberry v. Roberts 221 Woodbridge v. Brigham. 446, 459, 480 Woodbury v, Crum 523 Woodcock V. Bennett 487 Woodfolk V. lieslie 169, 171 Woodlin V. Foster 454 Woodlock V. Leslie 17 Woodman v. Boothby 267, 415 Woodman v. Churchill 390 Woodman v. Eastman.. 522, 529, 553 Woodman v. Thurston 525 Wood River Bank v. First Nat. Bank 29, 477 Woodruff V. Daggett 468 Woodruff V. Hensel 578 Woodruff V. King 391 Woodruff V. Merchants' Bank ... 32 Woodruff V. Mississippi .... 191, 192 Woodruff V. Monroe 167, 569 Woodruff V. Plant 632 Woods V. Neeld 507 Woods V. North 176, 208 Woods V. Ridley 23, 643 Woods V. Woods 539 Woodstock V. Houldsworth 515 Woodsum V. Cole 363, 365 Woodward v. Foster 405 Woodward v. Genet 25 Woodward v. Griffiths-Marshall Co 37, 598, 600 Woodward v. Harbin 426 Woodward v. Lowry 471, 524 Woodward v. Severance 432 Woodworth v. Bank of America. . 454 455 Woodworth v. Huntoon 376 Woolen V. Uhlrich 376 Wooley V. Clark 76 Wooley V. Cobb 287 Wooley V. Constant 558 Wooley V. Lyon.. 234, 318, 642, 649 WooUey v. Sergeant 175 Woolfolk v. Bank of America. . . . 252 Wooten V. Inmab 386 Worcester County Bank v. Dor- chester, etc.. Bank 261 Worcester Nat. Bank v. Cheeney. 288 289 Worden v. Dodge 187 Worden v. Mitchell 521 Worden v. Whitehall 471 Work V. Tatman 32 Workingmen's Banking Co. v. Blell 519 Workman v. Wright. . . 166, 569, 571 Wormer v. Agricultural Works. . 371 Worsham v. Goar 512 PAGE. Worth v. Case 256, 258, 278, 279 Worthington v. Cowles 420, 433 Wray v. Chandler 56 Wren v. Hoffman 290 Wright V. Andrews 529 Wright V. Broeseau Ill, 115 Wright V. Dresser 66 Wright V. Dyer 445 Wright V. Fisher 61 Wright V. Hardy 396 Wright V. Hooker 127 Wright V. Independence Nat. Bank. 549 Wright V. Irwin 201, 209, 392 Wright V. Levy 355 Wright v. MacCarty 635 Wright V. McKittrick 277 Wright V. McLarinan 46 Wright V. Morgan 193 Wright V. Pipe Line Co. 134, 135, 385 Wright V. Shimek 238 Wright V. Steele 47, 51 Wright V. Traver 237, 238 Wright V. Waller 384 Wright V. Wright 282 Wyatt V. Ayres 374 Wyatt V. Evins 292 Wyatt V. Walton 69 Wyekoff v. De Graff 554 Wyckoff V. Runyon 275 Wylly V. Collins 64 Wyman v. Adams 527 Wyman v. Colo. Nat. Bank 391 Wyman v. Fiske 298, 304 Wyman v. Ft. Dearborn Nat. Bank 638 Wyman v. Robbins 365 Wyman v. Yeomans 562 Wynen v. Shappert 510 Wynn v. Alden 501 Wynn v. Poynter 426 Wynne v. Whisenant 273 Y. Yale V. Dederer 64 Yale V. Eames 132 Yale V. Ward 14 Yanger v. 'Skinner 59 Yates V. Donaldson 551 Yates V. Nash 230 Yazel V. Palmer 287 Yeager v. Farwell 518, 520 Yeager v. Wallace Ill Yeatman v. Bellmain 66 Yellow Medicine County Bank v. Tagley 378 Yeomans v. Chatterton 297 Yerger v. Foote 73 Yingling v. Kohlhass 221 Yocum V. Smith 252 Table of Cases Cited. XClll PAGE. Yorkshire Banking Co. (The) v. Beaton 125 Yost V. American Ins. Co 280 Young V. Bennett 501 Young V. Berkely 298, 380 Young V. Grote 254 Young V. Harris 648 Young V. Hudson 145 Young V. Lee 289 Young V. Pollak 63 Young V. Shepard's Estate 291 Young V. Ward 252 Younglove v. Cunningham 301 Youngs T, Adama ............. 189 PAGE. Youngs V. Ball 436 Youngs V. Lee 288, 499, 503 Youngs V. Stephens 57 Youngs V. Stevens 59 Z. Zabriskie v. Cleveland, C. & C. R. Co 244 Zeis V. Potter 354 Zellweger v. Caffe 434 Zimmerman v. Anderson 240 Zinsser v. Columbia Cab Co 537 Zoller V. Cleveland 79 Zook T. Simonsoa , , 368, 388 CHAPTER 1. Nature and Origin of Commercial Paper. A. IN GENERAL. g I. Commercial Paper Defined. § 2. Law Merchant; when to Control. B. BILLS OF EXCHANGE. § 3. Definition of Bills of Exchange. g 4. Origin of Bills of Exchange. a. Where originated. b. Law merchant; custom of merchants. c. Records and chronicles showing use of bills of exchange. d. Statutes and ordinances relating to bills of exchange. e. Judicial decisions involving bills of exchange. g 5. Assignability of Bills of Exchange. § 6. Inland and Foreign Bills of Exchange. a. Definitions. b. Distinction between foreign and inland bills. c. Determination of question as to what constitutes a foreign bill. g 7. Parties to Bill of Exchange. g 8. Bills in a Set. a. When made. b. Form of parts. C. PROMISSORY NOTES. g 9. Definition. § 10. Negotiability. § II. Development and Early Use. a. Origin and development. b. Statute of 3 & 4 Anne, chap. 9. g 12. Parties to a Promissory Note. D. OTHER FORMS OF COMMERCIAL PAPER. g 13. Bank Notes; Definition and Use. g 14. Due Bills and I O U's. g 15. Certificates of Deposit. 2 J^ATUEE AND OeIGIN. §§ 1, 2. § i6. Checks. a. Definition. b. Bistinction between checks and bill* of exchange. § 17. Bills of Lading. a. Definition. b. Negotiability. I 18. Letters of Credit. a. Definition and nature. b. Classification. c. Effect of letters of credit. § 19. Bonds and Coupons. I 30. Certificates of Stock. A. IN GENERAL. } I. Commercial paper defined. Commercial paper is a term Bynonymous with negotiable paper. It includes bills of exchange, promissory notes, bank checks, and all other negotiable instruments. It has been defined as any negotiable instrument given in due course of business, whether the element of negotiability be given it by the law merchant or by statute.^ This definition assumes negotiability as the essen- tial element of commercial paper. There are, however, many other instruments of credit which are generally nonnegotiable in character, but which are so commonly used in the furtherance of commercial transactions as to be included within the term " commercial paper." Among these are warehouse receipts, bills of lading, corporate and municipal bonds, letters of credit, and due bills, which are not, by express terms or by statute, made negotiable. All these instruments should be considered in a treatise on commercial paper, and will be hereafter discussed in their proper places. i a. Law merchant; when to control. It is provided in the Negotiable Instruments Law, which has been adopted in many of the States,* that in any case not pro- 1. In re Sykes, 5 Biss. (U. S.) 113, 2. The Negotiable Instruments Law Fed. Cas. 13,708, See also Black's has been adopted in the following L. Diet. 226; Bouvier's L. Diet. 359. States: New York, Massachusetts, Tiedeman defines commercial paper Rhode Island, Connecticut, Pennsyl- as including all those instruments of vania, Maryland, Virginia, North Caro- indebtedness which are treated and lino, Tennessee, Florida, Wisconsin, used, in the commerce of the world. North Dakota, Colorado, Utah, Oregon, as the equivalents or representatives Washington, Ohio, New Jersey, Iowa, of money, or which are given the char- and in the Territory of Arizona and acteristics of money in the furtherance the District of Columbia. See Appen- of commercial ends, dix. § 2. Law Meechant^ when to Conteol. 3 ■vided for in that act, the rules of the law merchant shall govern.' The law merchant is a part lof the public law; it does not rest essentially for its character and authority on the positive institutions and local customs of any particular country, but con- sists of certain principles of equity and usages of trade, which general convenience and the common sense of justice have estab- lished, to regulate the dealings of merchants and mariners in all the commercial countries of the civilized world.* Before legislatures enacted statutes, and the courts decided cases which became a part of the written law, the necessities of business and the usages of trade produced a system controlling absolutely com- mercial intercourse. The lex mercatoria became a part of the law of the land; it developed along side of the conmion law; it was gradually recog- nized by the courts until, at the present time, the principles of equity and good faith, so imperatively demanded in all commer- cial transactions, and which lie at the foundation of the law merchant, have, for the most part, become a part of the common law, or been placed on our statute-books by legislative enact- ment. As has been stated by Chief Justice Cockbum in a lead- ing English case :® " The law merchant thus spoken of, with ref- erence to bills of exchange and other negotiable instruments, though forming part of the body of the lex mercatoria, is of comparatively recent origin. It is neither more nor less than the usages of merchants and traders in the different departments of trade ratified by the decisions of the courts of law." It was contended, and decided by Lord Blackburn, that usage could not have the effect of conferring the incident of negotia- bility on a document that was not negotiable by the ancient law merchant.' This decision, if followed, would have effectually checked the expansion of the law merchant in its application to negotiable instruments, and would have prevented the develop- ment of the law relating thereto by the modification of existing and the creation of new customs regulating their use. The prin- ciple declared by Lord Blackburn was fortunately disapproved and overruled in the case of Goodwin v. Robarts. It is now generally accepted as a true doctrine that general customs of trade, sufficiently ascertained and proved, become a part of the 3. Neg. Inst. Law (N. Y.), 5 7. See 5. Goodwin v. Robarts, L. E., 10 Appendix. Exch. (Eng.) 346. 4. 3 Kent's Comm. 2. 6. Crouch v. Credit Foncier, L R 8 Q. B. (Eng.) 374. 4 Natuee and Oeigin. § 3. law mercliant which the courts will recognize and enforce. As was said by Lord Oockburn, in the case of Goodwin y. Robarts: " While we quite agree that the greater or less time that a custom has existed may be material in determining how far it has gen- erally prevailed, we cannot think that if a usage is once shown to be universal, it is the less entitled to prevail, because it may not have formed part of the law merchant as previously recog- nized and adopted by the courts." B. BILLS OF EXCHANGE. § 3. Definition of bill of exchange. A bill of exchange is an order in writing directing one person to pay another a given sum of money absolutely. '^ This defini- tion is modeled somewhat after that of Chancellor Kent, who defines a bill of exchange as a written order or request by one person to another, for the payment of money, absolutely and at all events.* Since the passage of the Bills of Exchange Act of 1882 in England it may be assumed that the authorized defi- nition of a bill of exchange in that country is that contained in that act. By section 3 of that act a bill of exchange is defined as " an unconditional order in writing, addressed by one per- 7. Chalmers defined a bill of ex- other to whom that third person may change as " an unconditional order in order it to be paid; or it may be pay- writing for the payment of a sum of able to bearer, or to the drawer him- money absolutely and at all events." self. Daniel's Neg. Inst., § 27. Chalmers' Dig. Bills & Notes (Benj. Blackstone has defined a bill of ex- ed.). Byles, in his edition published change to be an open letter of request before the English Bills of Exchange from one man to another, desiring him Act, defined a bill of exchange as "An to pay a sum of money named therein, unconditional written order from A. to a third person on his account. 2 to B., directing B. to pay C. a sum Bl. Comm. 466. certain of money therein named." 8. Mr. Justice Story, in his work Edwards has defined a bill of ex- on Bills of Exchange, § 3, criticises chaAige as "An open letter directing this definition in that it omits the the person to whom it is addressed to peculiar distinguishable quality of a pay the sum therein specified to a ^in ^f exchange in modern times, i. e., third person named in the instrument jtg negotiability, which, though not by on account of the writer or person by ^ur law essential to the ir.strument, is whom It is drawn." This definition fol- gyn that, which, practically speaking, lows that of Chitty, who defines a bill ^ merchants, constitutes its true of exchange as An open letter of re- ^^^^J^^^^^ The definition of Kyd quest from and order by one person ,,, , _.,, _„, , . „. •', on another to pay a sum of money <^^y Mercatoria, in 1622, and who gives have been brought into general use by a full account of these bills as used the Jews and Lombards when banished by the merchants of Amsterdam, Ham- for their usury and other vices, in burg, and other places, expressly states order the more easily to draw their that such bills were not used in Eng- effects out of France and England into land. There is reason to think, how- those countries in which they had ever, that this is a mistake. Mr. Mac- chosen to reside. But the invention leod shows that promissory notes, pay- of it was a little earlier ; for the able to bearer, or to a man and his Jews were banished out of Guienne in assigns, were known in the time of 1287, and out of England in 1290 ; and Edward IV. Indeed, as early as the in 1236 the use of paper credit was statute of 3 Rich. II, chap. 3 (1379), introduced into the Mogul Empire in bills of exchange are referred to as a China." means of conveying money out of the Chitty, in his work on Bills (p. 11), realm, though not as a process in use says : " Other authors have attributed among English merchants. But the the invention to the Florentines when, fact that a London merchant writing being driven out of their country by 6 Natuee and Origin. § 4. b. Law merchant; customs of merchants. — There can be no doubi; but that bills of exchange, and indeed all otber negotiable instruments have tbeir origin in the law merchant. The customs of commerce established these useful mediums as the natural re- sult of the necessities attending commercial transactions. The introduction and use of bills of exchange in England, as indeed everywhere else, seems to have been founded on the mere practice of merchants, and gradually to have acquired the force of custom.*^ The inconvenience of exchanging article for article gave rise to the, use of money as a medium of exchange. Early in the history of the nations of antiquity the use of money became gen- eral.''^ While there is no vestige of the existence of bills of ex- change among the ancients, and the precise period of their intro- duction is somewhat controverted, it is apparent that their first use came from the convenience of transferring the bill from one place to another rather than the money which it represented.^' the faction of the Gabelings, they es- change of goods for money, and of tablished themselves at Lyons and money of one denomination for an- other towns. On the whole, however, other, may be found stated in the there is no certainty on the subject, early Hebrew Scriptures; and those though it seems clear foreign bills who sat at the tables to exchange the were in use in the fourteenth century, one for the other were called bankers, as appears from a Venetian law of or masters of the exchange, or money- that period; and an inference drawn changers. Story on Bills of Exchange, from the statute 5 Eich. II, pt. 1, § 5. chap. 2, warrants the conclusion that 13. Origin as stated by Kyd. — In foreign bills were introduced into this the infancy of mankind, nature pointed country previously to the year 1381." out the simple mode of exchanging one Daniel says, in his work on Nego- commodity for another, by a compara- tiable InstrmneBts (§4): "And there tive estimation of their respective is reason to believe that bills of ex- values, dictated by the immediate change were known in England as wants of the parties to the exchange, early as 1307, since in that year King But when the occupation of a mer- Edward I ordered certain money col- chant became a, distinct profession, leeted in England for the Pope, not prospects of a more distant gain intro- to be remitted to him in coin or bul- duoed a more exact appreciation of lion, but by way of exchange (per the value of the several articles; and viam Camhii)." Citing Anderson's a common standard, under the denomi- History of Commerce, vol. .1, p. 361. nation of money, to which everything 11. Story on Bills of Exchange, else should be referred as its measure, §§ 5-11. appears to have been adopted at a 12. Use of money by ancients. — very early period in the history of When money was invented as the com- mankind. It is probable, from the low mon medium of commerce, the ex- state of navigation and commerce in change of money for goods, which prop- the ancient world, that the only im- erly constitutes a sale, and of money provement, till long after the sub- for money, which is but a form of version of the Roman Empire, was the exchange, can be traced distinctly in reduction of the rude pieces of an- the common transactions of the same tiquity to a, more commodious form, nations, as well as in the intercourse under the sanction of the State. It of different nations. Thus, the ex- was reserved for an oppressed people. § 4. Origin of Bills of Exchange. 7 This convenience was threefold: it enabled a creditor to receive payment of his deht without trouble, risk, or expense; the debtor could pay his debt, if he was so disposed, without difficulty, and the person who presented the bill could find in a foreign or dis- tant place money for his immediate needs without the danger or inconvenience of having the specie in his possession. He cus- toms of merchants in respect to these bills made effectual as rules of law certain regulations controlling their use. The whole system of the law of commercial paper is the direct out- growth of these customs. Statutes have been enacted and legal principles have been judicially declared, all of which have had their birth in these mercantile customs and usages." c. Records and chronicles showing use of hills of exchange. — For some considerable time before we meet with bills of ex- change, in the reports and on the statute-books, they were used by English merchants for the purposes of foreign trade; they were treated by custom as binding long before they obtained the force of law through the recognition of courts of justice. As to just when and by whom these negotiable iastruments were first used it is difficult to say. Their origia is imbedded in obscurity. It seems safe to assert that they were not an invention but a development. A careful and exhaustive investigation of me- diaeval records and chronicles does not disclose the semblance of a bill of exchange in its modem form, earlier than the middle of the thirteenth century. The work of Pegoletti of Florence {Practica della Mercaturd), attributed to the commencement of the four- teenth century, contains unmistakable references to scritti de canibiio (letters of exchange), and makes use of several of the technical terms so familiar at the present day. But Salvetti, who considered as the outcasts of mankind, secret letters on those to whom they in an unenlightened age, urged by the had intrusted their effects in the for- necessity of their situation, to intro- mer countries, who honorably dis- duce into Europe at least, if not to charged the trust reposed in them, by give birth to, a method, by which mer- complying with the orders contained chants, of regions the most remote in the letters. In the course of time from each other, could convey the rea- these letters received a fixed form, and sons of procuring the value of their had conferred on them the name of commodities, without the inconveni- bills of exchange. Kyd on Bills of ence of transporting gold or silver. Exchange, p. 1. About the middle, or toward the end 14. It is to the custom of merchants, of the thirteenth century, the Jews, that we owe the law as to bills of ex- driven by the exactions of the Prince, change, promissory notes, and other from England and France, took refuge negotiable instruments. " Custom in in Lombardy, and from thence gave to the Common Law," by P. A. G-reer, L. merchant strangers and travelers Quar. Rev, vol. 9, p. 165. 8 Natuke and Oeigiw. § 4. ■writes of the antiquities of Florence/^ mentions a corpus artis cambii sanctionem of the year 1259, which dealt largely with the art of weighing and testing coin, but did not recognize or contain a reference to the existence of liiterce cambii. Mr. Jencks in his article entitled " Early History of Negotiable Instruments," " gives in full a letter of exchange, bearing date October 5, 1339, and states that it is the oldest bill of exchange known to him. Another example is also given, dated May 18, 1404. Both of these letters are clearly distinguishable as intended for use as bills of exchange, in the same sense and for the same purpose as such bills are used at the present time. d. Statutes and ordinances relating to hills of exchange. — Early European statutes and ordinances have given still further proof of the existence of bills of exchange at a date not later than the end of the fourteenth century. Mr. Jencks also cites a Piacenza ordinance of the year 1391, which compelled campsores or dealers in money to give written acknowledgments of money deposited with them, and provides for a special and speedy remedy on such documents; and by an almost contemporary ordinance, adopted by the magistrates of Barcelona, March 18, 1394, it is provided that any one, to whom a letter of exchange is presented, must answer within twenty-four hours, whether he will accept or not, and must further indorse on the letter the decision to which he comes together with the exact date of the presentation. If he fails to comply with this rule, he is to be deemed to have ac- cepted.^'' And again, an ordinance of the French King, Louis XI,** creating or renewing a quarterly fair in the town of Lyons, refers to the use of lectres de change as an established institution for merchants whose business compels them to frequent fairs. e. Judicial decisions involving hills of exchange. — ^Not many very early cases seem to have been cited in which the courts of European countries or of England have recognized the custom of merchants in respect to bills of exchange. Mr. Jencks, in the article above referred to, has called attention to a case which he selected from a number published by Brunner in the Zeitschrift f iir Handelsrecht, which were discovered among manuscript copies 15. Salvetti, Antiquates Plorentinse, einear historischen Entwickelung, etc., 1777. p. 107. 16. 9 Law Quar. Rev., p. 73. 18. Kecueil General des anciennes 17. This ordinance is printed in full Lois frangais, by Isambert, Jourdan, in the Appendix of Marten's Cersuch and De Crusy (Ed. 1825), X, 451-456. The ordinajice is dated 1462, § 4. Oeigin of Bills of ExcHAiirGE. 9 of Protocols recorded in connection with proceedings before the town council of Bruges, in the middle of the fifteenth century. The case referred to is Spinula v. Camby, in which judgment was rendered March 29, 1448. It involyed a bill of exchange given by Eicy at Avignon to Cerruche, and drawn on one Marian Bau, payable at Bruges to Camby, the defendant, and one other. Bau paid the bill to Camby, but Camby nevertheless protested for nonpayment, and sent the bill back with the protest to Avignon. Marian Ban's rights passed- to her brother Odo, who assigned them to Spinula, the plaintiff, who sued Camby for the amount received by him from Marian Bau. The defendant pleaded the bankruptcy of Odo Bau, and also that Spinula was not a proper p^rty to sue, but that the suit should have been commenced by Marian Bau. The court held that the transfer was worthless and nonsuited the plaintiff. We have here a case remarkably similar in all its aspects to one which might arise under the modem law. Enough more cases from the same source, and contemporaneous, could be described, as to leave no doubt but that early in the fifteenth century bills of exchange were common subjects of liti- gation in Belgium. The first reported case in England of a suit on a bill of exchange seems to be that of Martin v. Bowie,^® decided in the first year of the reign of James I. Ifo new legal principle was involved in this case. The bill was stated in the declaration to have been drawn secundem usum mercatorum, but there does not seem to have been any evidence of what the usus mercatorum was, as indeed was not necessary, as the action was in assumpsit between parties between whom there was privity of contract, and the obligation was complete without proof of any custom. Another and apparently the next English case reported is that of Oaste v. Taylor.*" The principle was declared in this case that the accept- ance of a bill of exchange amounts, by the law merchant, to a promise to pay; but that it must be stated that the drawee was a merchant at the time he accepted it.** The custom invoked in this 19. Croke's Reports, vol. 2, p. 6 (1 direct hia bill of exchange, bona fide, Jae. I). and without covin, to another mer- 20. Croke's Reports, vol. 2, p. 306 chant conunorant beyond seas, and (10 Jac. I). trafficking between London and the 21. The case is stated thus in the parts beyond seas; upon such a mer- reports : " Whereas by the custom of chant's accepting a bill, and subscrib- London between merchants trafficking ing it according to the use of merchant, from London into the parts beyond it hath the force of a promise, to seas, if any merchant commorant in compel him to pay at tiie day ap- London, and trafiScking beyond seas, pointed by the bill," 10 Watuee and Oeigin. § 5. case was local to tibe city of London, and was only applicable to foreign bills. It would seem that at this time the use of biUfl of exchange had been confined to foreign trades. At a somewhat later date legal recognition was extended to inland bills between traders, and finally to all bills, whether drawn and accepted by traders for purposes of trade, or by private persons for purposes unconnected with trade.^ This extended recognition of bills of exchange was only brought about slowly, by those tentative hesi- tating steps that are so characteristic of English law reform, whether legislative or judicial. It would seem that at first the validity of inland bills of ex- change depended solely on the local custom. In the earlier cases it was required to produce some evidence of the custom, but later, when the custom became general rather than local, the courts took judicial notice of it, as they did of all other parts of the common law.*^ § 5. Assignability of bills of exchange. It is a very ancient rule of common law that a chose in action (which is defined to be a right not reduced into possession) could not be assigned or transferred. This rule seems to have been the result of the fear that such transfers would produce oppression of the weak by the strong, and cause endless litigation.^ How- 22. Bromwieh v. Lloyd, 1 Lutw. tieular custom between London and (Eng.) 603 (8 Wm. III). It is stated Bristol; and it was an action against in this case by Chief Justice Treby the acceptor; the defendant's counsel that bills of exchange at first were ex- would_ put them to prove the custom; tended oniy to merchant strangers at which Hale, Chief Justice, who tried trading with English merchants, and it, laughed and said they had a hope- afterward to inland bills between mer- ful case of it. And in my Lord North's chants trading one with another in time, it was said, that the custom in England, and after that to all traders that case was part of the common law and dealers, and of late to all persons of England; aid these actions became trading or not. frequent, as the trade of the nation 23. Carter v. Downieh, 1 Show, did increase; and all the difference (Eng.) 124, 3 Mod. 227 (3 & 4 James between foreign bills and inland bills li). It was held in this case that it is that foreign bills must be protested was sufiicient to allege by plea that a before a public notary before the bill had been indorsed according to the drawer can be charged, but inland bills customs of merchants without setting need no protest." out the custom, because the customs of In the case of Brandao v. Barnett, 3 merchants were part of the common C. B. (Eng.) 530, 6 M. & 6. 665, Lord law, and the courts would take ju- Campbell said : " When a general dicial notice of them. usage has been judicially ascertained In the case of BuUer v. Crips, 6 and recognized, it becomes part of the Mod. (Eng.) 29 (2 Comm.), Chief Jus- law merchant, which courts of jus- tice Holt says : " I remember when ac- tice are bound to know and recognize." tions upon inland bills of exchange did 24. This doctrine was based " on first begin ; and there they laid a par- the ground that such alietiatioiis § 6. Inland and Foreign Bills. 11 ever commendable and ne'cessary this rule seemed to be, it be- came apparent at an early date that the exigencies of commerce demanded that bills of exchange be excepted. Kercantile ex- perience soon proved that the assignment of debts -was, imder certaia circumstances, indispensable, and bills of exchange were devised as the most convenient instrument for facilitating, secur- ing, and authenticating the transfer.^ And while the rigidity of the common-law rule has been relaxed by statute, both in Eng- land^ and in the States of this country, to the extent of making debts and other legal choses in action assignable in writing, yet bills and notes retain their superior convenience in being assign- able by simple delivery, or by indorsement and delivery, accord- ing to the nature of the instrument.*^ The negotiability of bills of exchange and the rules relating thereto will be hereafter considered.^ I 6. Inland and foreign bills of exchange. a. Definitions. — ■ The Negotiable Instruments Law in force in many of the American States^^ has adopted the definition of an inland bill of exchange and applied it to the State adopting such law. By such definition an inland bill of exchange is a bill which is, or on its face purports to be, both drawn and payable within tended to increase maintenance and 37. Byles on Bills (16th ed.), p. 3. litigation, and afforded means to The derivative title (of a person to powerful men to purchase rights of whom a bill has been indorsed or de- action, and thereby enable them to op- livered) is a title by assignment, a press indigent debtors, whose original title which the common law does not creditors would not perhaps have sued acknowledge, but which exists only by them," Chitty on Bills, p. 6. And the customs of merchants. As it is liord Coke says that it is one of the by force of the custom of merchants maxims of the common law, that no thaA a bill of exchange is assignable at right of action can be transferred, " be- all, of necessity the custom must di- cause, under colour thereof, pretended rect how it shall be assigned; and in titles might be granted to great men, respect to bills payable to order, the whereby right might be trodden down custom has directed that the assign- and the weak oppressed, which the ment should be made by a writing on common law forbiddeth." Coke Litt. the bill called an indorsement, appoint- 214a. ing the contents of that bill to be paid 25. On this ground, the custom of to some third person; and in respect merchants, whereby a foreign bill of of bUls drawn payable to bearer only, exchange is assignable by the payee that the assignment should be con- to a third person, so as to vest in him stituted by delivery only. This is sim- the legal as well as equitable interest pie and obvious; every man who can therein, was recognized and supported read can discover whether the holder by our courts of justice in the four- of a bill claims to be the assignee of teenth century ; and the custom of mer- it as assignee or bearer. Lord Chief chants Tendering an inland bill trans- Baron Eyre in Gibson v. Minet, 1 H. ferable was established in the seven- Bl. 605. teenth century. Chitty on Bills, p. 8. 28. Post, chap. III. 26. 36 & 37 Vict., chap. 66, § 25. 29. See note 2, on p. 2. 12 i^ATUEE AND OeiGIN. 6. the State. Any other bill is a foreign bill. Unless the contrary appears on the face of the bill, the holder may treat it as an inland bill.^" Independent of this statutory rule it is now -well estab- lished that a bUl drawn iu one State upon a person who is a resident of another State, and payable there, is a foreign bill.^^ This doctrine was controverted and was only settled after a con- siderable discussion by both the courts and text-writers. The reason for the rule is clear. Each State is foreign as to every other, in respect to its individual sovereignty; it is governed by separate laws, having a separate and distinct municipal juris- prudence, and exists as an independent and supreme governing power, except so far as it is controlled and limited by the supreme sovereignty conferred upon the Federal Government by the Con- 30. Neg. Inst. L. (N. Y.), § 213. The English Bills of Exchange Act of 1882 provides (in § 4) that "an inland bill is a bill which is, or on the face of it purports to be, both drawn and payable within the British islands, or drawn within the British islands upon some person resid^t therein. _Any other bill is a foreign bill. For the purposes of that act British islands include any part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ire- land, the islands of Man, Guernsey, Jersey, Alderney, and Sark, and the islands adjacent to any of them being part of the dominions of her majesty. Unless the contrary appear on the face of the bill, the holder may treat it as an inland bill." 31. United States. — U. S. Bank v. Daniel, 12 Pet. 32, 9 L. Ed. 989; Buckner v. Finlay, 2 Pet. 586, 7 L. Ed. 528 ; Dickens v. Beal, 10 Pet. 572, 9 L. Ed. 538; Life Insurance Co. v. Pendleton, 112 U. S. 696, 5 Sup. Ct. 314, 28 L. Ed. 866; Armstrong v. Am. Exchange Bank, 133 U. S. 433, 10 Sup. Ct. 450, 33 L. Ed. 747; Lons- dale V. Brown, Fed. Cas. No. 8,494. Alabama. — Donegan v. Wood, 49 Ala. 242, 20 Am. Rep. 275; Todd v. Neal, 49 Ala. 266; Turner v. Patten, 49 Ala. 406; Quigley v. Primrose, 8 Port. 247. Florida. — Joseph v. Soloman, 19 Fla. 623. Georgia. — Hartridige v. Wesson, 4 Ga. lOi. Illinois. — Mason v. Dousay, 35 111. 424, 85 Am. Dec. 368. Indiana. — American Express Co. v. Haire, 21 Ind. 4, 83 Am. Dec. 334; State Bank of Indiana v. Hayes, 3 Ind. 400. Kentucky. — Kice v. HogaH, 8 Dana, 133; Chenowith v. Chamberlain, 6 B. Mon. 40, 43 Am. Dec. 145; Harmon V. Wilson, 62 Ky. 322; Gray Tie & Lumber Co. v. Farmers' Bank, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1333, 60 S. W. 537. Ma4^. — Green v. Jackson, 15 Me. 136; Warren v. Coombs, 20 Me. 139; Freeman's Bank v. Perkins, 18 Me. 292; Ticonic Bank v. Stacpole, 41 Me. 302. Massachusetts. — Phoenix Bank v. Hussey, 12 Pick. 483 Missouri. — Linville v. Welch, 29 Mo. 203. New Hampshire. — Carter v. Burley, 9 N. H. 558 ; Grafton Bank v. Moore, 14 N. H. 142; Simpson v. White, 40 N. H. 540. New York. — ^Halliday v. McDougall, 20 Wend. 81; Bank of Commerce v. Rutland & W. R. Co., 10 How. Pr. 1 ; Commercial Bank of Kentucky v. Var- num, 49 N. Y. 269. Oklahoma. — Morrison v. Farmers & Merchants' Bank, 9 Okla. 697, 60 Pac. 273. Rhode Island. — Aborn v. Bosworth, 1 R. I. 401. South Carolina. — Duncan v. Course, 1 Const. Rep. 100 ; Bank of Cape Fear V. Stinemetz, 1 Hill, 44. Tennessee. — Gardner v. Bank of Ten- nessee, 31 Tenn. 420. Virginia. — Brown v. Ferguson, 4 Leigh, 37, 24 Am. Dee. 707. § 6. IlTLAND AND FoEBIGN BiLLS. 13 stitution of the United States.^^ It follows therefore that the laws regulating the use of bills of exchange in the several States may differ, and the reasons which exist for treating as foreign a bill drawn upon a resident of another State are the same as those which exist in the case of a bill drawn upon a resident of a foreign country. b. Distinction letween foreign and inland bills. — The most important distinction between foreign and inland bills is that the former, if dishonored by nouBoceptance, must be protested for nonacceptance, and if dishonored for nonpayment, must be protested for nonpayment.^^ It is, however, necessary for other purposes than that of protest to ascertain whether a bill is foreign or inland. In the case of an inland bill the laws regulating its validity are the same notwithstanding the residence of the parties ; but in the case of a foreign bill the validity, interpretation, and effect of the instrument will be determined by the laws of the State or country where the obligations of the several parties thereto are to be performed. c. Determination of question as to what constitutes a foreign hill. — The face of the bill will generally indicate its character. Under the Negotiable Instruments Law and the English Bills of Exchange Act a bill may be treated by the holder as an inland bill unless the contrary appears on its face.^ As a result of this provis'ion, which is apparently new in the English Act of 1882 3Z. Sir William Blackstone, in his States of the Union in relation to ea«h Commentaries (vol. II, p. 467 ) , distin- other, we are clearly of the opinion guishes foreign from inland bills by that bills drawn in one of these States defining the former as bills drawn by upon persons living in any other of a merchant residing abroad upon his them partake of the character of for- correspondent in England, or vice eign bills and ought so to be treated. versa; and the latter as those drawn For all national purposes embraced by by one person on another, when both the Federal Constitution, the States drawer and drawee reside within the and the citizens thereof are one, united same kingdom. Chitty (p. 16) and under the same sovereign authority, other writers (Bayley and Kyd) on and governed by the same laws. In bills of exchange are to the same effect ; all other respects the States are neces- and all of them agree that, until the sarily foreign to and independent of statutes of 8 & 9 Wm. Ill, chap. 17, each other. Their Constitutions and and 3 & 4 Anne, chap. 9, which forms of government being, though re- placed these two kinds of bills on the publican, altogether different, as are same footing, and subjected inland bills their laws and institutions. Buckner to the same law and custom of mer- v. Finley, 2 Pet. (U. S.) 586, 7 L. Ed. chants which governed foreign bills, 528. the latter were much more regarded 33. Neg. Inst. Law ( N. Y. ) , § 260. in the eye of the law than the former, See also as to protest of bills of ex- aa being thought of more public con- change, post, chap. XV. cern in the advancement of trade and 34. Neg. Inst. Law (N. Y.), § 213; commerce. Applying this definition to English Bills of JDxehange Act of 1882, the political character of the several § 4, subd. 2. 14 Natuee and Obigih-. § 7. and in the Negotiable Instramenta Law, the presumption in each case will be in favor of treating bills of exchange as inland, and the holder of a bill, which, upon its face, does not show its char- acter as a foreign bill, may treat it as inland. It ia a well-settled principle of law, independent of the provisions of the statute, that the courts will not take judicial notice of the fact that a city, village, or town, mentioned in a bill as the place where it was drawn or made payable, is located in a foreign country or State.^* Testimony may be admitted to show that a biU which on its face purports to be a foreign bill is in reality an inland bill, and therefore subject to the Stamp Act.*® But, on the other hand, as against a iona fide purchaser without notice, it cannot be shown that a bill purporting to be foreign is an inland bill, or vice versa?'' It has been held in Kentucky that when a bill did not indicate on its face the place where it was drawn, but the evidence and circumstances showed that the drawer resided in Kentucky and the drawee in Ohio, the legal presumption is that it was drawn at the drawer's residence.*® § 7. Parties to bills of exchange. A bill of exchange is an unconditional order in writing ad- dressed by one person to another, signed by the person giving it, requiring the person to whom it is addressed to pay on demand, or at a fixed and determinable future time, a sum certain in money to, or to the order of, a specified person or bearer. This is the definition contained in the English Bills of Exchange Act,*' and also in the E^egotiable Instruments Law.*" No particular form of 35. Kearney v. King, 18 E. C. L. the law of the State of Illinois in (Eng.) 28; s. c, 1 Chitty, 28; Cook v. respect to its acceptance. Mason Crawford, 4 Tex. 420; Yale v. Ward, v. Dousay, 35 111. 424, 85 Am. Dee. 30 Tex. 17; Kiggin v. Collier, 6 Mo. 368. 568. In tlie ca^e of Towne v. Kice, 122 36. Jordaine v. Lashbrooke, 7 T. R. Mass. 67, it was held that the maker (Eng.) 601; Bire v. Moreau, 2 C. & or indorser of a, promissory note can- P. (Eng.) 376; Bartlett v. Smith, 11 not, as against an indorsee of the same M. & W. (Eng.) 483. in the State of Massachusetts for value 37. Towne v. Rice, 122 Mass. 67; before maturity and without notice, Lennig v. Ralston, 23 Pa. St. 137. show that the note, although dated at A bill of exchange drawn in Michi- Boston with intebt that it should be a gan in favor of a Michigan payee on Massachusetts contract, was actually a person residing and having his place made in New York, and, on account of of business in Illinois, and which was illegal interest, was void under the accepted in Illinois, is a foreign, and usury laws of that State, not an inland bill, notwithstan£ng the 38. Harmon v. Wilson, 62 Ky. 322. drawee also had a place of business in 30. Eng. Bills of Exch. Act, 1882, Michigan, where he spent a portion of { 3. his time; and it must be governed by 40. Neg. Inst. L. (N. Y.), § 210. §7. Paeties to Bills. 15 words is necessary to a bill of exchange provided it is made clear that it directs one person to pay a certain sum of money to, or to hold that sum at the disposal of another.** The parties to a bill of exchange are (1) the drawer, the person who signs the instrument; (2) the drawee, the person to whom it is addressed, and (3) the payee, the person to receive the money .''^ When the drawee has undertaken to pay the bill he is called the acceptor. Sometimes a bill is drawn payable to the drawer, in which case he is the payee, and there are then but two parties to the bill.** It is pro- vided in both the English Bills of Exchange Act and the Nego- tiable Instruments Law, which also seems declaratory of the gen- eral rule, that where a bill is drawn by the drawer payable to himself, or payable to a fictitious person, or a person not having capacity to contract, the holder may, at his option, treat it either as a bill or note.** And a bill drawn by the drawer upon himself as drawee, and made payable to himself, but indorsed to another person, may be treated as a bill of exchange by the indorsee in a suit against the drawer as an acceptor, or it may be treated as the. promissory note of the drawer.** It seems conclusively established 41. Ellison V. Collingridge, 9 B. & C. 570. 42. Byles on Bills (16th ed.), p. 2. 48. Story on Bills of Exchange, § 35. 44. Where in a bill, the drawer and drawee are the same person, or the drawee is a fictitious person, or a per- son not having capacity to contract, the holder may treat it at his option, either as a bill or a note. English Bills of Exchange Act, 1852, § 5 (2) ; Neg. Inst. L. (N. Y.), § 214. As an illustration. — A firm carries on business in London and Liverpool. The London house draws a hill on the Liverpool house. The holder may treat it as a note made by the London house payable in Liverpool; and if it be not paid the omission to give notice of dishonor to the London house is immaterial. Chalmers on Bills of Exchange, § 4, p. 17. An order drawn by the president of a railroad corporation upon its treas- urer, directing the latter to pay to A. B., or order, a specified sum, stated as being the amount due A. B. for work done by him as contractor, in building a section of the corporation's railroad, is in eflFect a promissory note, and may be declared on as such. It is not a bill of exchange because it lacks the essential elements of two parties; t. e., a drawer and drawee. Fairchild V. Ogdensburgh, etc., Ry. Co., 15 N. Y. 337. 45. England. — Miller v. Thomson, 3 M. & G. 576, in which case Lord Tin- dal said : " There is an absence of the circumstance of there being two dis- tinct parties, as drawer and drawee, which is essential to the constitution of a bill of exchange. See also Eai p. Parr, 18 Ves. 69; Shuttleworth v. Stephens, 1 Campb. 407; Allan v. Manson, 4 Campb. 115; Harvey v. Kay, 9 B. & C. 356, 364; Dehers v. Harriott, 1 Show. 159; Starke v. Ghees- man, Carth. 509; Robinson v. Bland, 2 Burr. 1077. Alaiama. — Brazelton v. McMurray, 44 Ala. 323 ; Hart v. Shorter, 46 Ala. 453 ; Capital City Ins. Co. v. Quinn, 73 Ala. 558. But such a bill in the hands of an indorsee is a bill of exchange Randolph v. Parish, 9 Port. (Ala.) 76. Georgia. — Patillo v. Mayer, 70 Ga. 715; Lewis v. Harper, 73 Ga. 564; De Vaughn v. Hangabook, 73 6a. 809. Indiana. — Wardens, etc., of St. James Church v. Moore, 1 Ind. 289. Kentucky. — Rice v. Hogan, 8 Dana (Ky.), 133; Bradley v. Mason, 6 Bush (Ky.), 603. 16 Natuee and Oeigin. § 8. as a general rule, independent of statutory provision, that an in- strument may be a bill of exchange although the drawer and drawee are the same persons ;*® and that such an instrument may be sued on either as an accepted bill or as a promissory note.*^ § 8. Bills in a set. a. When made. — There is usually but one copy made of an inland bill ; but foreign bills are often made in sets. The Nego- tiable Instruments Law provides that " where a bill is drawn in a set, each part of the set being numbered and containing a reference to the other parts, the whole of the parts constitute one bill." ^ The reason for making foreign bills in sets is that the danger of miscarriage is thus decreased ; if one or more of the bills is not delivered some one of the others may arrive at its proper destination. The custom of making foreign bills in sets has be- come so common that in some cases the purchaser or person in whose favor they are made may demand, as a matter of right, that they be made in sets.** b. Form of parts. — The parts of a bill of exchange in a set are made on separate pieces of paper, each part being numbered and referring to the other parts.""* Each part should contain a con- dition, that it shall be paid, provided the others remain unpaid, and is generally in the following form : " Pay to A. B. or order, for value received, this my first of exchange (the second and third Maine. — Cunningham v. Wardwell, the obligation to give a set is pre- 12 Me. 466. sumably a matter of bargain. Chal- Massachusetts. — Com. v. Butterick, mers on Bills of Exchange (5th ed.), 100 Mass. 12, 97 Am. Dec. 65. p. 235. Michigan. — Hasey v. White Pigeon Chitty says : " If a person has en- Beet Sugar Co., 1 Doug. (Mich.) 193. gaged to deliver a foreign bill, it seems New York. — Fairchild v. Ogdens- that he is bound, on request, to de- burgh, etc., Ey. Co., 15 N. Y. 337. liver as many parts of it as may be South GaroUna. — MeCandlish v. applied for; but if the drawer only Cruger, 2 Bay (S. C.), 377. give one bill, he will, if it should be Texas. — Planters' Bank of Tennes- lost, be obliged to give another of the see V. Evans, 36 Tex. 592. same date to the loser." Chitty on 46. Harvey v. Kay, 9 B. & C. 356, Bills, p. 154. 364 {per Bayley, J.) ; Wildes v. Sav- The German Exchange law, art. 66, age, 1 Story ( U. S. ) , 22, Fed. Cas. No. provides that the payee is entitled to 17,653; Randolph v. Parish, 9 Port, demand a set from the drawer; and if (Ala.) 76. a bill issued singly be destroyed or 47. Funk v. Babbitt, 156 111. 408, 41 lost, the indorsee can obtain a second N. E. 166. See also Bunting v. Mick, of exchange by addressing himself to 5 Ind. App. 289, 31 N. E. 378, 1055. his immediate indorser, who applies to 48. Neg. Inst. L. (N. Y.), § 310. the indorser before, and so on up to See Appendix, post. See also English the drawer. Bills of Exchange Act of 1882, §71. 50. Byles on Bills (16th ed.), p. 49. Chalmers says that in England 137. §9. Definition of Peomissoky Notes. 17 of the same date and tenor remaining unpaid)." ^^ A cancellation or payment of any one of the parts extinguishes all the rest.'** The rights and liabilities of holders and acceptors of bills in a set will be considered hereafter.®^ C. PROMISSORY NOTES. I 9. Definition of promissory note. A promissory note is an unconditional promise in writing, made by one person to another, signed by the maker engaging to pay on demand, or at a fixed or determinable future time, a sum certain in money to, or to the order of, a specified person, or to bearer. A negotiable promissory note is payable to the order of a specified person or to the bearer.^* 'No precise form of words is necessary to constitute a valid promissory note, provided all statutory requirements are complied with.^* It has been held that an in- strument containing a promise to do anything more than to pay a certain sum of money at a certain time, and at all events, is not a promissory note, but a special agreement.^® 51. Story on Bills of Exchange, § 28. 52. Neg. Inst. L. (N. Y.), § 315. See Appendix, post. 53. See ehap.XII, §§ 1S8-U0, post. 54. See Byles on Bills (16th ed.), p. 6. The Negotiable Instniments Law de- fines a negotiable promissory note within the meaning of that act as " an unconditional promise in writing made by one person to .another, signed by the maker engaging to pay on de- mand, or at a fixed or determinable future time, a sum certain in money to order or to bearer." And under this act, " where a note is drawn to the maker's own order, it is not complete until indorsed by him." Neg. Inst. L. (N. Y.), § 320. See Appendix. The definition in the text is that contained in the English Bills of Ex- change Act of 1882, § 83. It is more appropriate to our purposes because it defines promissory notes without re- gard to their negotiability. A promissory note has also been de- fined as a written engagement by one person to pay another person, therein named, absolutely and unconditionally, a certain sum of money at a time specified therein. Drake v. Markle, 21 Ind. 433, 83 Am. Dee. 358; Brown v. First Nat. Bank, 115 Ind. 572, 18 N. E. 56; Maryland Fertilizing & Mfg. Co. V. Newman, 60 Md. 584, 45 Am. Rep. 750; Cayuga County Nat. Bank v. Purdy, 56 Mich. 6, 22 N. W. 93. The following cases may also be cited as containing definitions of a promis- sory note: Walters v. Short, 10 111. 252; Coolidge v. Euggles, 15 Mass. 387; Carnwright v. Gray, 127 N. Y. 92, 27 N. E. 835, 24 Am. St. Kep. 424, 12 L. R. A. 845. 55. Hooper v. Williams, 2 Exch. 20; Peto V. Iteynolds, 9 Exch. 410, affd. in 11 Exch. 418; Pepoon v. Stagg, 1 Nott & McC. (S. C.) 102; Woodlock v. Les- lie, 2 Nott & McC. (S. C.) 585; Hitch- cock V. Cloutier, 7 Vt. 22. See also Hunt V. Devine, 37 111. 137, in which the court held that any form of ex- pression contaiaing an absolute prom- ise to pay a certain amount at a time certain constitutes a promissory not. 56. Lane v. Gobbold, Fed. Gas. No. 8,051; Austin v. Burns, 16 Barb. (N. Y.) 643; Barnes v. Gorman, 9 Rich. Law (S. C), 297. 18 Nature and Oeigin. §§ 10, 11. { 10. Negotiability of promissory note. A promissory note is not essentially negotiable,^^ although un- der the M"egotiable Instruments Law it must have this character- istic in order to be subject to the provisions of that statute.* Although negotiability is not essential to the validity of a promis- sory note, " it is this quality which gives it its principal import- ance, and makes it a circulating credit, so extensively used and so generally resorted to iq the commerce of the world." '* The requirements of a negotiable instrument will be considered here- after.^o I II. Development and early use of promissory notes. a. Origin and development. — It seems likely that, as long as money has been in use and men have expressed themselves in writing, simple promissory notes, or written promises to pay money, have been used for the purpose of promoting trade and commercial transactions.®^ The Roman law mentions such prom- ises,*^ and there is no reason to believe that they were not used by the even more ancient nations. The negotiability of these in- struments was unknown among the Komans and is evidently the development of modern times. It is difficult to definitely state when promissory notes first came into use as negotiable instru- ments. They were evidently known and used on the continent long before they became common in England. The time of their introduction into England can only be conjectured; it has been stated that they appear to have been introduced therein, about thirty years (1670) before the reign of Queen Anne.^ However 57. Alabama. — Bowie v. Foster, 403; Kimball v. Huntington, 10 Wend. Minor (Ala.), 264. (N. Y.) 675, 25 Am. Dee. 590; Carn- Georgia. — Eeed v. Murphy, 1 Ga. wright v. Gray, 127 N. Y. 92, 27 N. E. 236. 835, 24 Am. St. Rep. 424, 12 L. R. A. Maine. — Bates v. Butler, 46 Me. 845. 387. Pennsylvania. — Withers v. Deane, Maryland. — Duncan v. Maryland 21 Leg. Int. (Pa.) 300. Sav. Inst., 10 Gill & J. (Md.) 299. Tennessee. — Cummings v. Freeman, Massachusetts. — Sibley v. Phelps, 6 22 Humph. (Tenn.) 143. Cush. (Mass.) 172. Vermont. — ^Arnold v. Sprague, 34 Missouri. — Finney v. Shirley, 7 Mo. Vt. 402. 42; McGowen v. West, 7 Mo. 569, 38 58. Neg. Inst. Law (N. Y.), § 320. Am. Dec. 468; Brady v. Chandler, 31 59. Story on Promissory Notes (7th Mo. 28. ' ed.), p. 4. "New York. — Downing v. Baeken- 60. See chap. Ill, post. stoes, 3 Caines (N. Y.), 137; Goshen 61. IParsonsonBillsandNotes, p. 9. & M. Turnpike Co. v. Hurtin, 9 Johns. 62. Dig. Liber 22, tit. 1, L. 41, s. 2. (N. Y.) 217, 6 Am. Dee. 273; Sey- 63. Kyd on Bills, p. 18, where it is mour V. Van Slyck, 8 Wend. (N. Y.) said: "As commerce advanced in its §11. Development of Peomissoet Notes. 19 this may be, it is certain that such notes were within the custom of merchants for a long time prior to the time when they became the subject of litigation or legislation. Malynes, in his work on Lex Mercatoria, first published in 1622, describes promissory notes, calling them bills obligatory or bills of debt.^ In speaking of these bills, he says : " The sincerity of plain dealing hath been hitherto inviolable in the making of said bills, which every man of credit and reputation giveth of his own handwriting, or made by his servant, and subscribed by him, without any seal or witness thereto ; and is made payable to such a merchant or person, or to the bearer of the bill, at such times of payment as is agreed." It cannot be doubted but that the antiquity of promissory notes is as great as that of inland bills of exchange; and indeed it would seem that the foreign custom of merchants respecting promissory notes was gradually and imperceptibly engrafted into the English law merchant at the same time, and imder the same sanction as inland bills.*' No distinction seems to have been made in the progress, the multiplicity of its con- cerns required, in many instances, a less complicated mode of payment than by bills of exchange. A trader, whose situation and circumstances rendered credit from the merchant or manu- facturer who supplied him with goods, absolutely necessary, might have so limited a connection with the com- mercial world at large, that he could not easily furnish his creditor with a bill of exchange on another man; but his own responsibility might be such, that his simple promise to pay, re- duced to writing for the purpose of evidence, might be accepted with equal confidence as a bill on another trader; hence, it may reasonably be con- jectured, were at first introduced; and the period of their introduction ap- pears to have been about thirty years before the reign of Queen Anne." 64. Bills obligatory, bills of debt.— Promissory notes were called bills ob- ligatory, or bills of debt, and are described with great accuracy by Malynes in his Leic Mercatoria, pp. 71, 72 et seq., where he gives the form of such a bill, which will be found in sub- stance exactly like a modern promis- sory note. "I, A. B., merchant of Amsterdam, do by these presents, ac- knowledge to be indebted to the honest C. D., English merchant, dwelling at Middleborough, in the sum of £500, current money, for merchandise, which is for commodities received of him to my conient; which sum of £500 as aforesaid, I do hereby promise to pay unto the said C. D. (or the bringer hereof) within six months after the date of these presents. In witness whereof, I have subscribed the same at Amsterdam, this day of July, ." This is nothing more than a verbose promissory note, which stripped of its redundancies is simply this: For- value received, I promise to pay to C. D., or bearer, £500, in six months after- date. See Appendix, 1 CraUch (U. S.). 386. 65. Inland bills and promissory notes " both came into use at the same time, were of equal benefit to com- merce, depended upon the same prin- ciples, and were supported by the same law." Appendix, 1 Cranch (U. S.), 386. Comyns (Lord Chief Baron), in his Digest, under the title " Merchant," in abridging the substance of what Malynes had said upon the subject of bills of debt, or bills obligatory, stated the law as follows : " Payment by a merchant shall be made in money or by bill. Payment by bill is by bill of debt, bill of credit, or bill of exchange. A bill of debt, or bill obligatory, is, when a merchant by his writing ac- knowledges himself in debt to another 20 Natuee and Origin. § 11. earlier cases between inland bills of exchange and promissory notes.*® As a result we find considerable confusion existing as to the origin of the legal principles involving the rights and obliga- tions of the parties to promissory notes. b. Statute of 3 <& 4: Anne, chap. 9. — The continued and obstinate refusal of some of the common-law judges to accord to promissory notes, made payable to order or to bearer, the element of negotiability, and to permit them to be assigned and indorsed, led to the enactment of the statute of 3 & 4 Anne, chap. 9, which expressly and specifically conferred upon such notes the same quality of assignability and negotiability as was possessed by in- land bills of exchange. ^'^ Lord Chief Justice Holt was the most obstinate of all these judges. He appears to have been most vehement in his opposition and to have persistently contended against the recognition by the courts of the assignability of promis- in such a sum, to be paid at such a sory notes, or inland bills of exchange; day, and subscribes it at a day and for the reporters do not express them- place certain. Sometimes a seal is put selves with sufficient precision, but use to it. But such bill binds by the cus- the words " note " and " bill " promis- tom of merchants, without seal, wit- cuously." ness or delivery. So it may be made 67. Statute of 3 & 4 Anne, chap, g, payable to bearer and upon demand, provided as follows : " All notes made So it is sufficient if it be made and and signed by any person or persons, subscribed by the merchant's servant, whereby such person or persons shall So a bill of debt may be assigned to promise to pay to any other person, another toties quoties." And he then his, her, or their order, or to bearer, quotes at length the statute of Anne, any sum of money mentioned in such hereafter cited. Lord Comyns was note, shall be taken and construed to either at the bar or on the bench dur- be, by virtue thereof, due and payable lug the reigns of William, Anne, and to any such person or persons to whom George I and George II, and must the same is made payable; and also, have known how the law stood before every such note shall be assignable or the statute referred to, and it can be mdorsable over in the same manner readily inferred that m his opmion ^g ^^^^^^ ^jii, ^f exchange, and the the statute was enacted to confirm as ^^,^„ „^ ^^^ to whom such sum law the custom of merchants in vogue f„ ,,„ „„„i, „„+„ j„ „„i,i„ „„„ prior to that time. "^ ]'l ^"""^ "°*? made payable, may 66. Confusion in reports of early ^^''^t^in an action for the same in the cases.- There was apparently no dis- ^^-^^e manner as they might do on an tinction made, either by the bench, by ^^l^-nd bill of exchange, made or drawn the bar, or by merchants, betweek a «'<=<=0'^ding to the custom of merchants, promissory note and an inland bill, against the person or persons who and this is the cause of that obscurity ^'^^^ *^^ ^^.T^' ^"^^ .^"^ P^''^.°° .'"' in the reports of mercantile cases dur- Persons to whom such note is in- ing the reigns of Charles II, James II, horsed or assigned, or the money and William III, of which Lord Mans- therein mentioned ordered to be paid field complained so much in the case ''y indorsement thereon, may maintain of Grant and Vaughn, 3 Burr. 1525, an action for such sum of money, and 1 W. Bl. 488, where he says that either against the person or persons in all cases in King William's time who signed such note, or against any " there is great confusion ; for, with- of the persons who indorsed the same, out searching the record, one cannot in like manner as in cases of inland tell whether they arose from promis- bills of exchange." § 11. Development of Peomissoey Notes. 21 sory notes. In one case ^ he says : " The notes in question are only an invention of the Goldsmiths in Lombard street, who had a mind to make a law to bind all those that did deal with them ; and sure to allow such a note to carry any lien with it were to turn a piece of paper, which is in law but evidence of a parol contract, into a specialty ; and besides, it would impower one to assign that to another which he could not have himself ; for since he to whom this note was made could not have this action, how can his assignee have it ? " ®* It seems certain that the statute in question was the direct result of the pertinacious refusal of Lord Holt to yield to the custom of merchants in vogue as to the assignability of promis- sory notes. The preamble of a statute infers this,™ and there is a considerable of contemporary testimony to the same effect.^*^ It is apparent that Parliament recognized the injustice of Lord Holt's views, and deemed it important for the interests of commerce and business transactions that the true status of promissory notes, as already established by the custom of merchants, should become fixed, in fact, as a part of the law of the land.''^ 68. Buller v. Crips, 6 Mod. (Eng.) therein, are hot assignable or indors- 29. able over, within the custom of mer- 69. In the case of Clerk v. Martin, 1 chants, to any other person ; and that Salk. (Eng.) 129, also reported by Lord such person to whom the sum of Raymond in 2 Ld. Raym. 757 (decided money mentioned in such note is pay- in 1702 ) , Chief Justice Holt also said : able, cannot maintain an action by the " That the maintaining of these ac- custom of merchants against the per- tions upon such notes were innovations son who first made and signed the upon the rules of the common law; same; and that any person to whom and that it amounted to a new sort of such note should be assigned, indorsed specialty unknown to the common law, or made payable, could not, within the and invented in Lombard Street, which said custom of merchants, maintain attempted in these matters of bills of any action upon such note against the exchange to give laws to Westminster person who first drew and signed the- Hall. That the continuing to declare same: Therefore, to the intent to en- upon these notes upon the custom of courage trade and commerce, which merchants proceeded upon obstinacy will be much advanced, if such notes and opinionativeness, since he had al- shall have the same eflFect as inland ways expressed his opinion against bills of exchange, and shall be nego- them, and since there was so easy a tiated in like manner." method as to declare upon a general 71. Lord Hardwicke in Walmsley v. indeMtatus assumpsit for money lent." Child, 1 Ves. 346 (1749). See also Williams v. Cutting, 2 Ld. 72. Mr. F. A. Greer says, in his Raym. 825, 7 Mod. 154, and Bouton v. valuable article on " Custom in the Souter, 2 Ld. Raym. 774, in both of Common Law," 9 Law Quar. Rev. 169: which cases similar sentiments were " The only permanent result of Holt'a expressed by Chief Justice Holt. opposition was that Parliament was 70. The preamble of 3 & 4 Anne, constrained to do what the judges, chap. 9, is as follows : " Whereas it through his influence, declined to do. has been held, that notes in writing, Holt was a great lawyer, but his petu- signed by the party who makes the lant opposition to actions on promis- same, whereby such party promises to sory notes is not to be reckoned among pay unto any other person, or his or- the acts that constitute his title to a der, any sum of money mentioned great reputation. His view was con- 22 Natuee and Oeigin. §12. i 12. Parties to a promissory note. There are two original parties to a promissory note — the maker and the payee. The person who makes the note is the maker, and the person to whom it is payable is the payee. The note, when made payable to the payee or his order, may be transferred by indorsement accompanied by delivery to another person, in which case the payee becomes an indorser and the person to whom the note is transferred becomes the indorsee. The holder of a note is the payee or indorsee thereof who is in possession of it, or the bearer thereof when such note is made payable to bearer.''^ Where the note is made payable to the order of the maker and by him indorsed and delivered to another, it is, in legal effect, the same as an ordinary promissory note, in which the indorser is the maier and the indorsee is the payee.''* And where a note signed by two trary to that of the whole of West- minster Hall, and there can be no doubt that promissory notes had ex- actly the same claim to legal recogni- tion as bills of exchange, namely, the general custom of merchants through- out England." Opinion of Chief Justice Cockbum in the ease of Goodwin v. Robarts, L. R., 10 Exch. (Eng.) 337 (1878), in commenting upon the case of Wil- liams V. Williams, Garth. 269 (1692), continues as follows: "Thus far the practice of merchants, traders, and others, of treating promissory notes, whether payable to order or to bearer, on the same footing as bills of ex- change, had received the sanction of the courts; but Holt having become chief justice, a somewhat unseemly conflict arose between him and the merchants as to the negotiability of promissory notes, whether payable to order or bearer, the chief justice tak- ing what must now be admitted to have been a narrow-minded view of the matter, setting his face strongly against the negotiability of these in- struments, contrary, as we are told by authority, to the opinion of West- minster Hall, and in a series of suc- cessive cases, persisted in holding them not to be negotiable by indorsement or delivery. The inconvenience of trade arising therefrom led to the passing of the statute of 3 & 4 Anne, chap. 9, whereby promissory notes were made capable of being assigned' by indorse- ment or made payable to bearer, and such assignment was thus rendered valid beyond dispute or diflSculty. It is obvious from the preamble of the statute, which merely recites that 'it had been held that such notes were not within the custom of merchants,' that these decisions were not acceptable to the profession or the coimtry. Nor can there be much doubt that, by the usage prevalent among merchants, these notes had been treated as securi- ties negotiable by the customary method of assignment, as much as bills of exchange properly so called. The statute of Anne may, indeed, practi- cally speaking, be looked upon as a declaratory statute, confirming the de- cisions prior to the time of Lord Holt." 73. English Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, § 2. See also Neg. Inst. Law (N. Y.), § 2. What constitutes a holder. — ^A per- son must be in actual or constructive possession of a note to become the legal holder thereof, and it must be shown that he was in legal possession. Ly- saght V. Bryant, 9 C. B. (Eng.) 46; Jenkins v. Tongue, 29 L. J. Exch. (Eng.) 147; Ancona v. Marks, 7 H. & N. (Eng.) 686. It is not necessary that the indorsee should be in the personal possession of the note; possession by his agent is sufficient. Richardson v. Lincoln, 5 Mete. (Mass.) 201. The holder, even if not the owner, may maintain, in his own name, an ac- tion on the note, with the owner's con- sent. Wheeler v. Johnson, 97 Mass. 39. 74. Scull v. Edwards, 13 Ark. 24, 56 Am. Dec. 294. In this case it was held that the indorsee acquires a prim- § 13. Bank Notes. 23 or more persons is made payable to one of them, who in turn in- dorses it, he is liable thereon as maker.''* In many of the States the rule has been declared, by statute or by the courts, that a promissory note m.ade payable to the order of the maker, if issued for a valuable consideration without indorsement, has the same effect against the maker as if payable to bearer.™ D. OTHER FORMS OF COMMERCIAL PAPER. 8 13. Bank notes; definition and use. A bank note may be defined as a promissory note, made by a bank or a banker, payable to bearer on demand.^' Bank notes are itive title and not derivative, and the vent the indorsee from maintaining indorsement to him is not technically suit thereon. Ormsbee v. Kidder, 48 such, but is a part of the instrument Vt. 361. itself. See also Towne v. Smith, Fed. Where the instrument is given by Cas. No. 14,115 ; Winona Bank v. Wof- one firm to another, both having a ford, 71 Miss. 711, 14 South. 262. common member, it is not a promis- 75. Schmidt V. Archer, llSInd. 365, sory note until it is assigned by the 14 N. E. 543. An instrument signed latter firm; the assignee in such case by two persons is not invalid as a is to be regarded, as between himself promissory note because it is payable and the makers, as the real payee, and to the order of " myself." Jenkins v. may maintain an action against the Bass, 88 Ky. 397, 11 S. W. 293, 21 makers. Murdock v. Caruthers, 21 Am. St. Rep. 344. Ala. 785. Where the name of a firm The statutes of Kentucky provide is signed by one of two partners to a (Gen. Stats., chap. 22, § 13), that note payable to the other, it is, in where a note is made payable to the effect, merely the note of the former to maker's order, and is indorsed by him, the latter. Morrison v. Stockwell, 39 and then delivered, such signature and Ky. 172. delivery operates as a promise to pay 76. California. — Code, § 3102. And the face of the note at maturity to the see Main v. Hilton, 54 Cal. 110. person to whom the same shall be de- Mississippi. — Columbus Ins. & Bank, livered. Under this statute it has Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 73 Miss. 96, been held that where a note, signed by 15 South. 138. the defendant and M.^ was made pay- Missoiiri. — Lowrie v. Zankel, 49 Mo. able to the order of M, and the latter App. 153. signed his name on the back of the New York. — The statute of New note, and delivered it to the plaintiff, York formerly provided that a note that the defendant became liable to the made payable to the order of the plaintiff. Jenkins v. Bass, 88 Ky. 397, maker " shall, if negotiated by the 11 S. W. 293, 21 Am. St. Rep. 344, maker, have the same effect and be of See, generally. Pitcher v. Barrows, 34 the same validity as against the maker Mass. 361, 28 Am. Dec. 306; Heywood and all persons having knowledge of V. Wingate, 14 N. H. 73 ; Rombo v. the funds, as if payable to the bearer." Metz, 5 Strobh. (S. C.) 108, 53 Am. (Rev. Stat., pt. 2, chap. 4, tit. 2, § 5.) Dee. 694; Woods v. Ridley, 30 TeHn. This statute was repealed in 1897 by 194; Norton v. Downer, 15 Vt. 569. the Negotiable Instruments Law, and Notes signed by firm payable to under section 27 of that law it is now member. — Where a note signed by all provided that a note made payable to the members of a firm is made payable the maker is payable to order. See the to the order of one of them, the legal following cases which arose under the disability of the payee to maintain an former act: Irving Nat. Bank v. action thereon, because he would be Alley, 79 N. Y. 536 ; Turnbull v. Bow- both plaintiff and defendant, does not yer, 40 N. Y. 456 ; Shipman v. Bank of disqualify him from indorsing the note New York, 126 N. Y. 318, 27 N. E. 371. to a third party for value, nor pre- 77. Byles on Bills (16thed.),p, 10, 24 Natuee and Oeigin. § 13. generally issued for circulation as money.™ The laws of many States authorize the issue of circulating notes by banks and bankers and provide for their redemption by the deposit with the State of ample security.''* The National Banking Act expressly provides for the issue of circulating notes by national banks organ- ized under that act, to be secured by the deposit of United States bonds.** The United States statutes do not prohibit the issue of circulating notes by State banks, under the sanction of State au- thority, but they impliedly discourage it by imposing a tax on all notes " of any person, or of any State bank or State banking asso- ciation, used for circulation" and paid out by any national or State bank.*^ It follows, therefore, that the bank notes in use in this country are those issued by national banks, under the direct control of Federal authority. These notes are a most important part of our circulating medium. Their payment being secured by the deposit of government bonds, and the banks issuing them being so closely supervis'ed by the governmental departments having them in charge, they circulate without regard to the banks which contains the following definition of a ing association. State bank, or State bank note: "A bank note ia a prom- banking association shall pay a tax of issory note, made by a banker, payable ten per centum on the amount of notes to bearer on demand, and intended to of any person, or of any State bank or circulate as money." State banking association, used for eir- Edwards defines a bank note as " a culatiou and paid out by them." species of promissory note drawn pay- Object of tax; power to impose. — able to bearer on demand, and for This section does not lay a direct tax. many purposes treated and considered Congress having undertaken, in the ex- as cash." Edwards on Bills, etc., § 20. ercise of undisputed constitutional Parsons defines a bank note as a power, to provide a currency for the " promissory note of a bank payable on ^hole country, may secure the benefit demand to bearer and therefore nego- „f y. ^g tj,e people by appropriate leg- tiable by ^61^6^." 2 Parsons on islation, and to that end may restrain. Notes and Bills, 2, 88. ,„ by suitable enactments, the circulation 78. Byles on Bills _(16th ed.), p 10. „^ ^^^^ ^^^ issued under its au- 79. States authorizmg circulating ^^^^j^^ ^^^^j^ ^^^^ ^ ^ 8 notes are Kentucky, Ijouisiana, Mame, w.jj /tt o \ 533 Maryland, Massachusetts Minnesota, ^j^^ ^^;^ /^ ^^ ^he notes paid out. New Hampshire^ New Jersey, New ^^^^ . ^^^^ ^^^ ^^ ^^ ^ circulating York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode j. o i, • • t 4.i,„ Island, Tennessee, Vermont, West Vir- medium. Such a use is against the ginia. In the States of Arkansas, Cali- r^"'^^^^^ United States. There- fornia, Mississippi, Nevada, Oregon, fore the banker who helps to keep up Texas, and Washington the issul of ^^^ "^e by paying them out, that is, circulating notes is prohibited by the employing them as the equivalent of Constitution; and in the States of Ala- money in discharging his obligations, bama, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illi- is taxed for what he does. The taxa- nois, and Michigan such notes are pro- tion is no doubt intended to destroy prohibited by statute. the use; but that, as has just been 80. U. S. Rev. Stat., §§ 5157-5189. seen. Congress has the power to do. 81. U. S. Rev. Stat., § 3412, which Merchants' Nat. Bank v. U. S., 101 provides that: " Every national bank- U. S. 1. §14. Due Bills and I O U^s. 25 gave them life. The rules relating to negotiable instruments are not often applied to these notes. § 14. Due bills and I O U's. It has been generally held in this country that a due bill, — a paper whereby the maker acknowledges his indebtedness to the payee in form substantially as follows : " Due B. one hundred and fifty dollars, payable to his order. (Signed) A.," — is a promissory note.*^ This is upon the theory that the acknowledg- ment of indebtedness on its face implies a promise to pay.** As 82. Forms of due bills. — "Due A. B. $32.5, payable on demand" held a promissory note. Kimball v. Hunting- ton, 10 Wend. (N. Y.) 675, 25 Am. Dec. 590. See also Carver v. Hayes, 47 Me. 257. A paper as follows : " $525. Con- ger, Aug. 23, 1865. Due G. S. W., on corn, five hundred and twenty-five dol- lars. (Signed) A. B." is a promis- sory note. Jacquin v. Warner, 40 111. 459. But a writing as follows : " I owe the estate of Zenas Warden, $190.15. May 13, 1863 " was held to import a mere statement of balance, and not to be a promissory note. Bowles V. Lambert, 54 HI. 237. See Lincoln v. Butler, 18 Gray (Mass.), 129; McGowen v. West, 7 Mo. 569. An instrument in these words: " Good to Robert Cochran, or order, for $30, borrowed money " is a valid promissory note. Franklin v. March, 6 li. H. 364, 25 Am. Dec. 462. But a similar instrument, in which the payee was not named, was held not to be a promissory note. Brown v. Gilman, 13 Mass. 157. See also in general on this proposi- tion: Alabama. — Johnson v. Johnson, Minor (Ala.), 263; Bowie v. Foster, Minor (Ala.), 264; Fleming v. Burge, 6 Ala. 373. Arkansas. — Huyck v. Meador, 24 Ark. 191. Connecticut. — Smith v. Allen, 5 Day (Conn.), 337; Currier v. Lockwood, 40 Conn. 349, 16 Am. Rep. 40. Georgia. — Mitchell v. Rome E. Co., 17 Ga. 574; Brewer v. Brewer, 7 Ga. 584; Lowe v. Murphy, 9 Ga. 338; Hart v. Conner, 21 Ga. 384. Illinois. — Bilderback v. Burlingame, 27 111. 337 ; Sears v. Wesleyan Univer- sity, 28 111. 183. Kentucky. — ^Kalfus v. Watts, 16 Ky. 197. Louisiana. — Spearing v. Zacharie, 26 La. Ann. 496. Maine. — Carver v. Hayes, 47 Me. 257. Massachusetts. — Lincoln v. Butler, 14 Gray (Mass.), 129. Missouri. — Finney v. Shirley, 7 Mo. 42; McGowen v. West, 7 Mo. 569, 38 Am. Dec. 468; Brady v. Chandler, 31 Mo. 28. New York. — Luqueer v. Prosser, 1 Hill (N. Y.), 256; Sackett v. Spencer, 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 180; Russell v. Whipple, 2 Cow. (N. Y.) 536; Shel- don V. Heaton, 88 Hun (N. Y.), 535, 34 N. Y. Supp. 856. Pennsylvania. — Potts v. Coal Co., 6 Phila. (Pa.) 249. South Carolina. — Pepoon v. Stagg, 1 Nott & McC. (S. C.) 102. South Dakota. — Schmitz v. Hawk- eye Gold Min. Co., 8 S. D. 544, 67 N. W. 618. Tennessee. — Read v. Wheeler, 10 Tenn. 50; Cummings v. Freeman, 21 Tenn. 143 ; Marrigan v. Page, 23 Tenn. 247. Texas. — Hopson v. Brunwankel, 24 Tex. 607, 76 Am. Dec. 124. See 7 Century Digest, "Bills and Notes," § 61. 83. Kimball v. Huntington, 10 Wend. (N. Y.) 675, 25 Am. Dec. 590. See also Elder v. Rouse, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 220; Sackett v. Spencer, 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 184; Woodward v. Genet, 37 Barb. 527. But in Connecticut it has been held that while the law implies a promise to pay from a mere due bill or ac- knowledgment of debt, if the promise is simply implied and not expressed, the instrument cannot be classed with promissory notes. Currier v. Lock- 26 Nature and Oeigin. §14. suggested by the foot-note, there is some conflict of authority as to effect of the promise to pay implied in a due bill ; many nice dis- tinctions have been drawn, none of which are entirely satisfactory. A mere acknowledgment of debt evidenced by an I O U is held not to be a promissory note in England,** and many authorities in this country are to the sanue effect.*^ It seems well settled, how- ever, that if the due bill or I O U contains words which would import a promise to pay and render the instrument negotiable it should be treated as a promissory note.*^ If an I O TJ contains an agreement that it is to be paid on a given day, or on demand, it will be a promissory note.*'^ Some of the States have, by stat- ute, extended the law of bills and promissory notes to all instru- ments in writing whereby any person acknowledges any sum of money to be due to any other person.** wood, 40 Conn. 349, 16 Am. Eep. 40. And in Louisiana a due bill is a mere acknowledgment of debt, and, the promise to pay money being only im- plied, it does not fall within the defini- tion of a promissory note. Garland v. Scott, 15 La. Ann. 143. But this case seems overruled by Spearing v. Zaoh- arie, 26 La. Ann. 496. And in Missouri it has been held that a memorandum stating that a certain sum is due, with interest, but containing no express promise or time of payment, and naming no payee, is not a promissory note. Biskup v. Oberle, 6 Mo. App. 583. Story says (Promissory Notes, § 14) that " to constitute a good promissory note, there must be an express promise on the face of the instrument to pay money; for a mere promise implied by law, founded upon an acknowledged in- debtedness will not be sufficient." But this declaration of the rule is not up- held by the weight of authority either of the decisions as above cited, or of the text-writers. See Byles on Bills, p. 8; Parsons on Notes and Bills, § 24: Chitty on Bills, p. 428. 84. Most of the English cases arose under the Stamp Act and they held that such paper did not require a. stamp as it was only an evidence of indebtedness. Israel v. Israel, 1 Campb. 499 ; Gould v. Coombs, 1 C. B. 543 ; Childers v. Boulnois, Dowl. & E. 8; Smith v. Smith, 1 Fost. & F. 539; Beeching v. Westbrook, 8 Mees. & W. 411; Melanottev. Teasdale, 13 Mees. & W. 216; Fesenmayer v. Adcock, 16 Mees. & W. 449. 85. In Massachusetts it has been held that a mere promise implied by law, founded on an acknowledgment of indebtedness, is not sufficient to consti- tute a promissory note; as where the instrument was in the following form: "Marlboro', Sept. 23, 1881. "I O U, E. A. Gay, the sum of seventeen dolls. 5/100, for value re- ceived. John R. Rooke." Gay V. Kooke, 151 Mass. 115, 23 N. E. 835, 21 Am. St. Kep. 434, 7 L. E. A. 392. In this case the court said : " While in a few States it has been held otherwise, the law as generally understood in this country is, that in the absence of any statute, a mere ac- knowledgment of a debt is not a prom- issory note, and such is, we think, the law of this Commonwealth." The fol- lowing cases are cited: Gray v. Bow- den, 23 Pick. (Mass.) 282; Common- wealth Ins. Co. V. Whitney, 1 Mete. (Mass.) 21; Daggett v. Daggett, 124 Mass. 149; Almy v. Winslow, 126 Mass. 342; Carson v. Lucas, 13 B. Mon. (Ky.) 213. 86. Eussell v. Whipple, 2 Cow. (N. Y.) 536; Wardwell v. Sterne, 22 La. Ann. 28. 87. Byles on Bills (16th ed.), p. 35. See Brooks v. Elkins, 2 Mees. & W. 74; Waithman v. Elsee, 1 C. & K. 35; Brown v. Gilman, 13 Mass. 158. 88. Gay v. Rooke, 151 Mass. 115, 23 N. E. 835, 21 Am. St. Rep. 434, 7 f 15. Certificates of Deposit. 27 -§15. Certificates of deposit. A certificate of deposit is a receipt given by a bank or banker or any other person for money deposited whereby it is agreed to pay the person named therein, or order, the amount of money specified, in the manner agreed upon between the parties. If negotiable the certificate is a promissory note.** But a certificate which states that a certain sum is subject to the depositor's order, but contains no express promise to pay is not a promissory note.®* L. R. A. 392, citing Colo. Gen. Stat. (1883), chap. 9, § 3; 111. Rev. Stat. (1884), chap. 98, § 3; Ind. Kev. Stat. (1881), § 5501; Iowa Code (1873), § 2085; Miss. Kev. Code (1880), 11 1123, 1124. 89. Certificate as promissory note. — A certificate of deposit of a certain sum of money, payable at a future day, with interest until due, for the use of a person named, and to his or- der, upon the return of a certificate, is a negotiable promissory note. Miller V. Austen, 13 How. (U. S.) 218, 14 L. Ed. 119. There arc a number of other cases cited in the Century Digest (Bills and Notes, § 62), in support of this proposition, among which are: Alabama. — Renfro v. Merchants & Mechanics' Bank, 83 Ala. 425, 3 South. 776. California. — Wei ton v. Adams, 4 Cal. 37, 60 Am. Dee. 579; McMillan v. Richards, 9 Cal. 365, 70 Am. Dec. 655 ; Coye V. Palmer, 16 Cal. 158; Mills v. Barney, 22 Cal. 240; Brummaghim v. Tallant, 29 Cal. 503, 89 Am. Dee. 61. Connecticut. — Kilgore v. Bulkley, 14 Conn. 362. Florida. — Maxwell v. Agnew, 21 Fla. 154. Georgia. — Carey v. McDougald, ' 7 Ga. 84; Lynch v. Goldsmith, 64 Ga. 42. Illinois. — Peru Bank v. Farnsworth, 18 111. 563; Laughlin v. Marshall, 19 III. 390; Swift V. Whitney, 20 111. 144; I-Iunt V. Divine, 37 111. 137. India/na. — National State Bank v. Ringel, 51 Ind. 563; Gregg v. Union Co. Nat. Bank, 8? Ind. 238; Drake v. Market, 21 Ind. 433, 83 Am. Dee. 358. Iowa. — Bean v. Briggs, 1 Iowa, 488, 63 Am. Dee. 464. Maryland. — Fells Point Sav. Inst. v. Weedon, 18 Md. 320, 81 Am. Dee. 603. Michigam. — Gate v. Patterson, 25 Mich. 191; Tripp v. Curtenius, 36 Mich. 494, 24 Am. Rep. 610; Birch v. Fisher, 51 Mich. 36, 16 N. W. 220; Beardsley v. Webber, 104 Mich. 88, 62 N. W. 173. Minnesota. — Cassidy v. First Nat. Bank, 30 Minn. 86, 14 N. W. 363; Mitchell V. Eastman, 37 Minn. 335, 33 N. W. 910. New York. — Orleans Bank v. Mer- rill, 2 Hill (N. Y.), 295; Pardee v. Fish, 60 N. Y. 265, 19 Am. Rep. 176; Frank v. Wessels, 64 N. Y. 155 ; Baker V. Adams, 9 App. Div. 365, 41 N. Y. Supp. 399. Worth Carolina. — Johnson v. Hen- derson, 76 N. C. 227. Ohio. — Howe V. Hartness, 11 Ohio St. 449, 78 Am. Dec. 312; Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Brown, 45 Ohio St. 39, 11 N. E. 799. Texas. — First Nat. Bank v. Green- ville Nat. Bank, 84 Tex. 40. Wisconsin. — Ford v. Mitchell, 15 Wis. 304; Lindsey v. McClelland, 18 Wis. 481, 86 Am. Dec. 786; Klauber V. Biggerstaff, 47 Wis. 551, 3 N. W. 357, 32 Am. Rep. 773 ; Curran v. Wit- ter, 68 Wis. 16, 31 N. W. 705, 60 Am. Rep. 827. 90. Shute V. Pacific Nat. Bank, 136 Mass. 487. This case seems to stand somewhat alone among a great num- ber of cases which are all to the effect that the ordinary certificate of deposit is a promissory note. But the case arose under a statute (Gen. Stat., chap. 53, § 10; Pub. Stat., chap. 77, § 14), providing that in an action on a promissory note payable on demand, brought by indorsee against the prom- isor, any matter shall be deemed a legal defense which would be a defense to a suit on such note brought by the promisee, except that no matter aris- ing after notice of the indorsement or transfer of such note has been given to the promisor shall constitute a de- fense; and the court held that since certificates of deposit were not com- monly known in the community as promissory notes, to include them 28 Nature and Oeigin. i 16. And it has been held that where the certificate does not designate any time for payment, but is payable on the return of the cer- tificate, it is not a promissory note payable on demand.** The negotiability of a certificate of deposit depends upon the wording of the instrument, and is governed by the same rules that control promissory notes.®^ § 1 6. Checks. a. Definition. — A check is a bill of exchange drawn on a bank payable on demand. This is the definition contained in the Eng- lish Bills of Exchange Act of 1882,®* and also in the Negotiable Instruments Law recently adopted in many of the State's.** Eut in so far as these acts' define a check as a bill of exchange, they are declaratory of the law as it existed at the time of their passage.*' within the statute above cited would defeat entirely the purpose for which they are given. See also Hunt, Appel- lant, 141 Mass. gi5, 6 N. E. 554; O'Neil V. Bradford, 1 Finn. (Wis.) 390, 42 Am. Dec. 574; Patterson v. Poindexter, 6 Watts & S. (Pa.) 227, 40 Am. Dee. 554. 91. Shute V. Pacific Nat. Bank, 136 Mass. 487; Patterson v. Poindexter, 6 Watts & S. (Pa.) 227, 40 Am. Dec. 554; Charnley v. Dulles, 8 Watts & S. (Pa.) 353; Lebanon Bank v. Mangali, 28 Pa. St. 452; London Sav. Fund Soe. V. Hagerstown Sav. Bank, '36 Pa. St. 498, 78 Am. Dec. 390. 92. Negotiability. — ^A certificate of deposit may be made payable to A. B. when it is not negotiable. It may be made payable to A. B. or order, when it is negotiable by indorsement. It may be made payable to A. B. or bearer, when it is negotiable by simple delivery. If it be expressed as payable in currency or in current funds, or the like phraseology, it is not negotia- ble, because it is not made payable in money. Morse on Banks and Banking, p. 65. See also for particular instances of negotiable and nonnegotiable certifi- cates for deposit, Welton v. Adams, 4 Cal. 37; Mills v. Carney, 22 Cal. 240; Poorman v. Mills, 35 Cal. 118; Carey V. McDougald, 7 Ga. 84; Lynch v. Goldsmith, 64 Ga. 42; Lafayette Bank V. Ringel, 51 Ind. 393; Bellows Falls Bank v. Rutland, 40 Vt. 377. On return of receipt. — ^A written in- strument acknowledging the receipt of a specified sum of money in paper cur- rency for account of a person named, and promising to pay the same to such person or order " on return of this re- ceipt," with interest, is a negotiable promissory note. The words "on re- turn of this receipt " do not make it payable upon a contingency, or consti- tute a condition precedent; and its being payable in paper currency will be taken as meaning legal tender paper curf ency. Frank v. Wessels, 64 N. Y. 155. Current funds. — ^A certificate pay- able in " current funds " is not nego- tiable. Lafayette Nat. Bank v. Ringel, 51 Ind. 393. This case does not seem to be in accord with other cases in- volving certificates of deposit payable in current funds. See Citizens' Nat. Bank V. Brown, 45 Ohio St. 526, 11 N. E. 799, 4 Am. St. Rep. 526. 93. English Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, § 73 (see Appendix) ; Chalmers on Bills of Exchange, p. 245. 94. Neg. Inst. L. (N. Y.), § 321. See Appendix. 95. M'Lean v. Clydesdale Bank, L. R., 9 App. Cas. 95, per Lord Black- burn, who says that a check is an un- conditional order in writing addressed to a banker requiring him to pay a sum certain in money at a fixed or de- terminable future time, that is to say, on presentation; and coming within this definition it would clearly be a bill of exchange. §16. Checks. 29 In considering the above definition, whicli is now more authorita- tive than any of those used by the text-writers, the definition of a bill of exchange should also be borne in mind.*® With the defini- tion of a bill of exchange in view, a check may be defined as an unconditional order in writing addressed by a person to a bank®' or banker, signed by the person giving it, requiring the bank or banker to whom it is addressed to pay on demand a sum certain in money to order or bearer. ®® The United States Supieme Court in discussing the similarity of checks and bills of exchange used the follow- ing language : " Bank checks are not inland bills of exchange, but have many of the properties of such com- mercial paper; and many of the rules of the law merchant are alike applica- ble to both. Each is for a specific sum payable in money. In both cases there is a drawer, a drawee, and a payee. Without acceptance, no action can be maintained by the holder upon either against the drawer." Mer- chants' Nat. Bank of Boston v. State Bank, 10 Wall. (U. S.) 604, 19 L. Ed. 1008. See Bull v. Kasson Nat. Bank, 123 U. S. 105, 8 Sup. Ct. 62, 31 L. Ed. 97. A bank check is substantially the same as an inland bill of exchange. It passes by delivery, when payable to bearer, and the rules as to present- ment, diligence of the holder, etc., which are applicable to the one, are generally applicable to the other. Rogers v. Durant, 140 U. S. 298, 11 Sup. Ct. 754, 35 L. Ed. 481. The following decisions of the State courts are to the effect that checks are substantially the same as bills of ex- change (see Century Digest, Bills and Notes, § 20) : Alabama. — First Nat. Bank v. Nel- son, 105 Ala. 180, 16 South. 707. Illinois. — Biekford v. First Nat. Bank of Chicago, 42 111. 238; Rounds V. Smith, 42 111. 245. Indiana. — Glenn v. Noble, 1 Blaekf. (Ind.) 104; Henshaw v. Root, 60 Ind. 220. Kentucky. — Shrieve v. Duckham, 11 Ky. 194; "Humphries v. Bicknell, 12 Ky. 296. Maryland. — Moses v. Franklin Bank, 34 Md. 574; Hawthorn v. State, 56 Md. 530; Laird v. State, 61 Md. 309. Nebraska. — Wood River Bank v. First Nat. Bank, 36 Neb. 744, 55 N. W. 239. New Hampshire. — Barnet v. Smith, 30 N. H. 256. New York. — Murray v. Judah, 6 Cow. 484; Smith v. Jones, 20 Wend. 192; Eisley v. Phenix Bank, 83 N. Y. 318, 38 Am. Rep. 421; Duncan v. Ber- lin, 60 N. Y. 153. South \GaroUna. — Sutcliffe v. Mc- Dowell, 2 Nott & McC. 251. Tennessee. — Planters' Bank v. Mer- ritt, 54 Tenn. 177. Virginia. — Purcell v. AUemong, 22 Gratt. 739. Contra. — The following cases con- tain statements to the effect that checks are not bills of exchange, al- though the similarity is not denied: Indiana. — GriflSn v. Kemp, 46 Ind. 172; Harrison v. Wright, 100 Ind. 515, 58 Am. Rep. 805. Iowa. — Roberts v. Austin, 26 Iowa, 315. Kentucky. — Lester v. Given, 71 Ky. 357. Maryland. — Exchange Bank v. Sut- ton Bank, 78 Md. 577, 28 Atl. 563, 23 L. R. A. 173. Massachusetts. — BuUard v. Randall, 67 Mass. 605, 61 Am. Dec. 433; Way V. Towle, 155 Mass. 374, 29 N. E. 506. Missouri. — Hays v. Lathrop Bank, 75 Mo. App. 211. 96. Neg. Inst. L. (N. Y.), § 210. See Appendix. _ 97. A bank is defined by the Nego- tiable Instruments Law (§2) as in- cluding any person or association of persons carrying on the business of banking whether incorporated or not. See Wielahd's Admr. v. State Nat. Bank, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 1517, 65 S. W. 617; s. e., 66 S. W. 26. 98. Daniel defines a cheek as "a " draft or order upon a bank or bank- " ing-house, purporting to be drawn "upon a deposit of funds for the 30 Natuee and Oeigin-. §16. b. Distinction between checks and bills of exchange. — Notwith- standing the statement contained in the Negotiable Instruments Law, that a check is a bill of exchange, there are differences be- tween checks and bills which must be recognized. " The chief points of difference are that a check is always drawn on a bank or banker. No days of grace are allowed. The drawer is not discharged by the laches of the holder in presentment for pay- ment, unless he can show that he has sustained some injury by the default. It is not due until payment is demanded, and the Statute of Limitations runs only from that time. It is, by its face, the appropriation of so much money of the drawer in the hands of the drawee, to the payment of an admitted liability of the drawer. It is not necessary that the drawer of a bill should have funds in the hands of the drawee. A check in such a case would be a fraud." ®® It is provided in the Negotiable Instru- " payment at all events of a certain " sum of money, to a certain per- " son therein named, or to him or " his order, or to bearer, and pay- "able instantly on demand." (Dan- iel on Neg. Inst., § 1566.) In the note to this definition Mr. Daniel calls at- tention to the insufiiciency of the defi- nition employed by many of the text- writers. Among these are the follow- ing: Parsons on Notes and Bills (vol. 2), p. 57: "A check is a brief draft or order on a bank or banking-house, directing it to pay a, certain sum of money." Edwards on Bills, 396: "A check drawn on a bank is a bill of ex- change payable on demand." Story on Promissory Notes, § 487 : "A check is a written order or request addressed to a bank, or to persons carrying on the business of bankers, by a party having money in their hands, request- ing them to pay on presentment to an- other person, or to him or bearer, or to him or order, a certain sum of money specified in the instrument." In view of the legislative declaration as to what constitutes a check, con- tained in the Negotiable Instruments Law, in force in many of the States, as well as the decisions of the courts in most of the States, it would seem that the definition in the text is accu- rate and sufiiciently comprehensive. Pay check issued by the paymaster of a railroad company, drawn on the treasurer, payable at a bank named therein, is not a check on such bank. Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Bums,. 61 Neb. 793, 86 N. W. 483. An indorsement on an architect's certificate reciting that a certain amount is due to the contractor, viz.: " P. H. & Co., pay to the order of E." (contractor), and signed by the owner of the building, P. H. & Co. having in their hands funds of the owner to be paid out as required for the construc- tion of the building, is a check and not a bill of exchange. Industrial Bank of Chicago v. Bowes, 165 111. 70, 46 N. E. 10. 99. Merchants' Nat. Bank of Boston V. State Bank, 10 Wall. (U. S.) 647, 19 L. Ed. 1019; Be Brown, Fed. Cas. No. 1,985 (2 Story, 502). Distinction between check and bill. — Mr. Justice Story, in stating the distinction in point of law between checks and bills of exchange, refers to the rule that a, bill of exchange taken after the day of payment subjects the holder to all the equities attaching to it in the hands of the party from whom he receives it, and adds : " This rule does not apply to a check, for it is not treated as overdue, although it is taken by the holder some days after its date, and it is payable on demand. On the contrary, the holder, in such a case, takes it, subject to no equities of which he has not, at the time, notice; for a check is not treated as overdue merely because it has not been pre- sented as early as it might be, or as a bill of exchange is required to be, ta § 16. Checks. 31 ments Law and in the English Bills of Exchange Act that except as otherwise provided therein, the provisions thereof applicable to a bill of exchange payable on demand apply to a check.^ c. Checks payable after date. — The great weight of authority in this country upholds the doctrine that a draft or order upon a charge the drawer, or indorser, or presenting a check in due time for transferrer. One reason for this seems payment would not discharge the lat- to he, that, strictly speaking, a check ter, unless he had heen injured there- is not due until payment is demanded, by, and then only to the extent of his Be Brown, Fed. Cas. 1,985; 2 Story, loss; but a different rule in this re- 502, 513; Story on Promissory Notes, spect prevails in case of a bill of ex- 5 491. change. (5) A cheek requires no ac- In Massachusetts the distinction has ceptance, and when presented, the pre- been thus expressed: " A cheek differs sentment is for payment. (6) It is from a bill of exchange in this, that it not protestable, or in other words, pro- is drawn upon a bank, or on the house test is not requisite to hold either the of a private banker, is payable on pre- drawer or an indorser." Morrison v. sentment, and the bank or banker is Bailey, 5 Ohio St. 632, 64 Am. Dec. not entitled to days of grace upon it, 632. And see Andrews v. Blachly, 11 although payable on some other day Ohio St. 89. than its date. It may also be passed In England it has been held that " a from hand to hand, and a reasonable check is clearly not an assignment of time is allowed to each party receiv- money in the hands of a banker: — it ing the same to present it for payment, is a bill of exchange payable at a Taylor v. Wilson, 11 Mete. (Mass.) 44, banker's. The banker is bound by his 52. See also Daly v. New Jersey Steel contract with his ctistomer to honor 6 Iron Co., 155 Mass. 374, 29 N. E. the check, when he has sufficient assets 506. in his hands; if he does not fulfil his In New York it has been held that contract he is liable to an action by a bill of exchange is not necessarily the drawer, in which heavy damages payable on demand, but a cheek is. may be recovered if the drawer's credit Both may be drawn on a bank or has been injured. Hopkinson v. For- banker. Bowen v. Newell, 8 N. Y. 190. ster, L. R., 19 Eq. 74, 76, per Jessel, In Ohio it has been held in a lead- M. E. ing case that checks and bills of ex- Byles in his work on Bills (16th change are to be distinguished in the ed., p. 33), summarizes the chief following particulars: (1) "A check points of difference between checks and is drawn upon an existing fund, and bills as follows : " Checks are not ac- is an absolute transfer or appropria- cepted, hence the holder cannot sue the tion to the holder, of so much money bank. The drawer is not discharged in the hands of the drawee; whereas a by the holder's failure to present in bill of exchange is not always or nee- due time, unless the bank fail. Notice essarily drawn upon actual funds in of dishonor to the drawer is rarely le- the hands of the drawee, but very fre- gaily necessary, as absence of effects in quently drawn in anticipation of the drawee's hands, the almost uni- funds, or upon a previously arranged versal cause of dishonor, excuses it, as credit. (2) The drawer of a check is does countermand of payment. They always the principal; whereas the must be drawn on a banker, and pay- drawer of a bill frequently stands in able on demand, and are generally. the position of a mere surety. (3) As though Uot necessarily, inland. And between the holder of a check and an finally the banker is protected against indorser, demand of payment within a foreign or unauthorized indorsement due time is essential to the liability of of a draft on him to order on de- the letter. But days of grace being al- mand." lowed to bills of exchange,' the time for 1. Neg. Inst. Law (N. Y.), § 321. demanding payment of a bill is dif- See Appendix; English Bills of Ex- ferent. (4) As between the holder change Act, 1882, § 73. See Chalmers and drawer, however, mere delay in on Bills of Exchange, p. 245. 32 Nattjbe and Obigin. §16. bank payable after its date and subsequent to its issue is not a check, but a bill of exchange.^ d. Drafts by one hank upon another banh in another State. — ' It is customary in the transaction of banking business for one bank to issue drafts upon a bank located in another State. In such cases it is often important to ascertain whether such drafts are to be considered as checks or bills of exchange. But few cases, have 2. In general. — Treating generally of an instrument dated on a certain day, and by some form of words made payable at a day certain thereafter, it is probable that between the array of opposing authorities, the preponder- ance will be considered to lie in favor of the doctrine that such paper is not to be considered as a check, but as an inland bill of exchange, and therefore entitled to days of grace. Morse on Banks and Banking, p. 262. Forms of drafts declared bills of ex- change. — ^An instrument addressed to a bank: "Pay to M. C. J. & Co., or order, five hundred dollars, on 22nd October. $500. (Signed) E. W. & Co.," dated October 12, is a bill of exchange, and as such entitled to grace. Ivory v. State Bank, 36 Mo. 475, 88 Am. Dec. 150. As is also a draft in the follow- ing form: " W. & B. : Pay to L. L. B. on the 13th of July, 1853, or order, three hundred dollars." Morrison v. Baily, 5 Ohio St. 13, 64 Am. Dec. 632. So also is a, draft in the following form: " $199.92. Minneapolis, Minn., Mch. 27, 1888. On April 14th, pay to the order of E. Harrison, One' Hundred and ninety- nine, and 92-100 dollars. J. T. Hareison. To Citizens Bank, Minneapolis, Minn." Harrison V. Nicollet Nat. Bank, 41 Minn. 488, 43 N. W. 336, 16 Am. St. Eep. 718, 5 L. R. A. 746. Conflict of authority. — The question as to whether an instrument so dated is a cheek or a bill of exchange has given rise to considerable discussion and some conflict of opinion. The two principal authorities holding such an instrument a check are Re Brown, 2 Story, 502, Fed. Cas. 1,985 and Cham- pion V. Gordon. 70 Pa. St. 474. Both of these are entitled to great weight, but they stand almost alone, the Supreme Courts of Rhode Island (Westminster Bank v. Wheaton, 4 R. I. 30) and perhaps of Tennessee, being, so far as we know, the only ones which have adopted similar views. All other courts which have passed upon the question, as well as the text-writers, have almost uniformly laid it down that such an instrument is a bill of exchange, and that an essential char- acteristic of a check is that it is pay- able on demand. Harrison v. Nicollet Nat. Bank, 41 Minn. 488, 43 N. W. 336, 16 Am. St. Rep. 718, 5 L. R. A. 746. The following Massachusetts cases may also be cited in favor of the propo- sition that such instruments are checks: Taylor v. Wilson, 11 Mete. 44; Way v. Towle, 155 Mass. 374, 29 N. E. 506. Bills of exchange and not checks. — The following cases are to the effect that such instruments are bills of ex- change : United States. — Ogden v. Saunders, 25 U. S. 213, 6 L. Ed. 606; Bank of Washington v. Triplett, 26 U. S. 25, 7 L. Ed. 37; Bell v. First Nat. Bank, 115 U. S. 373, 29 L. Ed. 409. California. — Minturn v. Fisher, 4 Cal. 36. Delaware. — Work v. Tatman, 2 Houst. 304; Bradley v. Delaplaine, 5 Harr. 305. Georgia. — Henderson v. Pope, 39 Ga. 361, reaffd. sub nom. Georgia Nat. Bank v. Henderson, 46 Ga. 496. Illinois. — Cutter v. Reynolds, 64 111. 321. 'New YorTc. — Murray v. Judah, 6 Cow. 484; Woodruff v. Merchants' Bank, 25 Wend. 673 ; Bowen v. Newell, 8 N. Y. 190; Pope v. Bank of Albion, 57 N. Y. 126. Ohio. — Morrison v. Bailey, 5 Ohio St. 13, 64 Am. Dee. 632. Oregon. — Hawley v. Jette, 10 Ore. 31, 45 Am. Eep. 129. § 17. Bills of Laduitg. 33 arisen where this question has been discussed. The settled opinion seems to be, however, that such drafts are checks and the parties thereto are subject to the same liabilities and possess the same rights as though such drafts were drawn upon a particular bank or banker by an individual.* § 17. Bills of lading. a. Definition. — It is customary to treat bills of lading as com- mercial paper. They have many of the characteristics of such paper, and many of the general rules and principles affecting the rights and liabilities of parties to such paper are applicable to them. A bill of lading has been defined as an instrument issued by a common carrier to the consignor of goods, consisting of a receipt therefor, and an agreement to carry them from the place of shipment to the place of destination.* A paper signed only by the consignor, stating the shipment, and intrusted to the master of a vessel, is not a bill of lading.® b. Negotiahility. — Bills of lading are sometimes called quasi- negotiable because they are transferable by indorsement, although they do not call for the payment of money.^ But it is also well 3. A check drawn by a bank in one 5. Covill v. Hill, 4 Den. (N. Y.) State on a bank in another, in dupli- 323, affd. in 6 N. Y. 374; Gage v. cate, is not a bill of exchange. Mer- Jaequeth, 1 Lans. (N. Y.) 207; Bab- chants' Nat. Bank v. Ritzinger, 118 cock v. Orbison, 25 Ind. 75. 111. 484, 8 N. B. 834. See also Harri- Where vendors of corn, with the in- son V. Wright, 100 Ind. 515, 58 Am. tention of sending it in their boats Hep. 805; Roberts v. Corbin, 26 Iowa, to the vendee, executed an instrument 315, 96 Am. Dee. 146 ; First Nat. Bank containing a recital of the shipment of Cincinnati v. Coates, 3 McCrary, of the corn, its quantity, the freight (U. S.), 9; Bull V. First Nat. due upon it, the terms of payment Bank of Kasson, 123 U. S. 105, of the purchase money, and the name 8 Sup. Ct. 62, 31 L. Ed. 97 ; Morrison of the boat by which it was sent, and V. Farmers & Merchants' Bank, 9 Okl. stating that the corn was to be de- 697, 60 Pac. 273; Bowen v. Needles livered as addressed, viz., to M., the Nat. Bank, 87 Fed. 430. vendee, care of D. & C, without delay, 4. Freeman v. Graemer, 63 Minn, it was held that this constituted a 242, 65 N. W. 455. bill of lading. Dows v. Rush, 28 Daniel (Neg. Inst., Vol. 2, § 1728) Barb. (N. Y.) 157. defines a bill of lading as " a written 6. Merchants' Bank v. Union, etc., " acknowledgment by the master of a Co., 69 N. Y. 373. A bill of lading is "ship, or the representative of any negotiable to this extent: that it is " common carriei-, that he has re- transferable by assignment or indorse- " eeived the goods therein described ment, and that the transferee takes " for the voyage or journey stated, to all the rights against the carrier that " be carried upon the terms and de- it conferred on the consignee, or the " livered to the persons therein speci- person to whose assigns or order the " fied. It is at once a receipt for the goods are to be delivered. Hunt v. " goods which renders the carrier re- Mississippi Cent. R. R. Co., 29 La. " sponsible as their custodian, and an Ann. 446. See also Tison v. Howard, "express written contract for their 57 Ga. 410 ; Robinson v. Stuart, 68 Me. "transportation and delivery." 61; Bait. & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Wilkens, 34 Nature and OBiGiif. 17. settled that goods shipped by a bill of lading drawn to the order of the shipper may be transferred by delivery of the bill without indorsement.^ The assignment of a bill of lading passes title to the goods described therein, if made in good faith and for a valu- able consideration.* The bill is symbolic of the goods described, and when so assigned confers upon the assignee all the rights of the assignor in such goods ;^ and it has also been held that the bona fide transferee for value of a bill of lading, indorsed by the shipper or his consignee, and put into circulation by the authority of the shipper or his consignee, has an absolute title to the goods, freed from the equitable rights of the unpaid vendor to stop in transitu as against the purchaser.^" Generally speaking, however, the gt«xst-negotiability of stich bills does not extend to allowing the possessor thereof to transfer property in the chattels, except by virtue of a title or authority from the true owner. ^^ The rule that a bona fide purchaser of a lot or stolen bill or note, indorsed in 44 Md. 11, 22 Am. Eep. 26; Chandler V. Belden, 18 Johns. (N. Y.) 157, 9 Am. Dee. 193. 7. Merehants' Bank v. Union, etc., Co., 69 N. Y. 373; Emery v. Irving Nat. Bank, 25 Ohio St. 360, 18 Am. Kep. 299, in whieh last case the court said : " By the rules of commercial law, bills of lading are regarded as symbols of the property therein de- scribed, and the delivery of such bills by one having an interest in or a right to control the property, is equivalent to a delivery of the prop- erty itself. * * * Being symbolical of the property described therein, it may be transferred, like the property itself, by delivery merely, and this is so without regard to the presence or absence of words of negotiability on its face. It is unlike commercial paper in this — the assignee cannot acquire a better title to the property thus sym- bolically delivered, than his assignor had at the time of the assignment." See also Strauss v. Wessel, 30 Ohio St. 211. 8. The Mary Ann Guest, Fed. Cas. 9,197; Newhall v. Central Pac. E. E. Co., 51 Cal. 345; Midland Nat. Bank V. Missouri, K. & T. Ey. Co., 62 Mo. 531; Chandler v. Beldten, 18 Johns. (N. Y.) 157, 9 Am. Dec. 193; Dows V. Greene, 24 N. Y. 638; McCants v. Wells, 4 S. C. 381. The delivery of the bill of lading, as between the vendee and third per- sons, is a delivery of the goods them- selves. Lickbarrow v. Mason, 2 Term R. (Eng.) 63, 6 East, 21, 1 Smith's Lead. Cas. 879. 9. Bill of lading as evidence of title. — An assignment and delivery of a bill of lading is equivalent in legal force to the sale and delivery of the goods. It is documentary evidence of title in and to the property specified in it, and conclusive as against all the parties to it in the hands of a hona fide holder. Such is the rule of the common law as settled in numerous cases, and recognized since the cele- brated case of Lickbarrow v. Mason, 2 Term E. 63, 6 East, 21. Dows v. Greene, 24 N. Y. 638, 644. See StoUen- werck v. Thacher, 115 Mass. 224. 10. Dows V. Greene, 24 N. Y. t)38, 641. 11. Barnai'd v. Campbell, 55 N. Y. 456. And see Hunt v. Mississippi Cent. R. Co., 29 La. Ann. 446. Bona fide purchasei. — The pur- chase of a bill of lading of one who obtained it through fraud con- fers upon the purchaser no title to the goods described, though he purchased it in good faith and for a valuable consideration. Blossom v. Champion, 37 Barb. (N. Y.) 554. See also Bank v. Shaw, Fed. Cas. No. 843, affd. in 101 U. S. 557: Winslow V. Morton, 29 Me. 419, 50 Am. Dec. 601. The purchaser of a bill of lad- ino', who has reason to believe that his vendor was not the owner thereof, § 18. Letters of Credit. 35 blank, or payable to bearer, is not bound to look beyond the in- strument, has no application to the case of a lost or stolen bill o£ lading.*^ § 1 8. Letters of credit. a. Definition and nature. — Letters of credit are sometinolea called bills of credit. They are to be classed as commercial paper, although they are not negotiable and lack many of the essential characteristics of bills and notes.-'* The definition of a letter of credit which is most commonly used is that given by Justice Story, as follows : A letter of credit (sometimes called a bill of credit) is an open letter of request, whereby one person (usually a mer- chant or a banker) requests some other person or persons to advance moneys, or give credit to a third person named therein, and promises that he will repay the same to the person advancing the same, or accept bills drawn upon himself for a like amount.** These letters have been introduced for the convenience of travel- ers and agents, to obviate the trouble and risk of carrying about coin or other money. In such cases, they are generally in the nature of circular notes issued by the banker; these notes are unsigned drafts, to be signed and used by the bearer of the letter of credit in his discretion. A deposit is made by the bearer of the letter with the banker as an indemnity, in which case the bearer may recover the balance to his credit upon the return of the letter and the xmused circulating notes. b. Classification. — Letters of credit are either special or gen- eral. They are special when they are addressed to a particular individual directing him to advance the sums specified therein to or that it was held to secure an out- Law (2d ed.), p. 831, which was standing draft, is not a bona fide pur- adopted in the ease of Johanessen v. chaser, nor entitled to hold the mer- Munroe, 84 Hun, 594, 32 N. Y. Supp. chandise covered by the bill as against 1144. ' the true owner. Shaw v. Merchants' A letter requesting one person to NaA. Bank, 101 U. S. 557, 25 L. Ed. make advances to a third person on the 892. credit of the writer is a letter of 13. Shaw V. Merchants' Nat. Bank, credit. Mechanics' Bank v. N. Y. & 101 U. S. 557, 25 L. Ed. 892. N. H. R. R. Co., 4 Duer (N. Y.), 480, 13. Edwards on Bills and Notes, 13 N. Y. 599; Brickhead v. Brown, 5 p. 239. Hill (N. Y.), 634. 14. Story on Bills of Exchange, Byles defines a letter of credit as an § 459. This definition is substantially authority, or rather request, by a the same as that used by Daniel in his banker to his foreign correspondent work on Negotiable Instruments (4th named therein, to discount bills drawn ed.), § 1790, and is the same as that on him by the bearer. Byles on Bills contained in 18 Am. & Eng. Encyc. of (16th ed.), p. 111. 36 Watuke astd Oeigijst. §18. the persons named ; they are general when addressed to all persons requesting such advances to the persons named therein.^' c. Effect of letters of credit. — The effect of a letter of credit is to place the issuer under a contract binding probably at law, but certainly so in equity, to pay, even without acceptance, all bills drawn in conformity with the letter of credit ; and the holders are not to be prejudiced by any set-off or cross-claim by the drawee against the drawer.^® They sometimes have the effect of guaran- ties, although a pure letter of credit is an absolute and independent promise which binds the drawer without regard to the failure of any other person. ^^ They are often promises to honor bills of 15. Characteristics of letter of credit. — Marius in his work on Bills, pp. 35, 36, written at the end of the eighteenth century, describes letters of credit in the following language: " Now letters of credit, for the fur- nishing of moneys by exchange, are of two sorts, the one general, the other special; the general letter of credit is, when I write my open letter directed to all merchants, and others, that shall furnish moneys unto such and such persons, upon this my letter of credit, wherein and whereby I do bind myself, that what moneys shall be by them delivered unto the party, or parties, therein mentioned, within such a time, at such and such rates (or in general terms at the price cur- rent), I do hereby bind myself for to be accountable and answerable for the same, to be repaid according to the bill or bills of exchange, which, upon the receipt of the money so furnished, shall be given or delivered for the same. And if any money be furnished upon such, my general letter of credit, and bills of exchange therefor given, and charged, drawn, or directed to me, although, when the bills come to hand, and are presented to me, I should re- fuse to accept thereof, yet (according to the custom of merchants), I am bound and liable to the payment of those bills of exchange, by virtue and force of such my general letter of credit; because he or they, which do furnish the money, have not so much if any respect unto the sufficiency or ability of the party, which doth take up the money, as unto me, who have given my letter of credit for the same, and upon whose credit, merely, those moneys may be properly said to have been delivered. The special letter of credit is, when a merchant, at the re- quest of any other man, doth write his open letter of credit, directed to his factor, agent or correspondent, giving him order to furnish such or such a man, by name, with such or such a sum of money, at one or more times, and charge it to the account of the merchant that gives the letter of credit, and takes bills of exchange or receipts for the same." Form of letter of credit. — The fol- lowing is a form of a special letter of credit, which was under consideration in the case of Johanessen v. Munroe, 84 Hun (N. Y.), 594, 32 N. Y. Supp. 1144: No. 5,687. Office of John Munboe & Co., Bankers, 32 Nassau St., New Yokk, Feh. 26, 1892. Messrs. Muneob & Co., Paris: Gentlemen. — We hereby open a credit with you in favor of Captain J. A. Johanessen, SS. " Raylton Dixon," for fifteen thousand francs (Fcs.15,000), available in bills at ninety days' date; on acceptance of any bill or bills drawn under this credit you are to draw on Corsten Boe, New York, at seventy-five days' date, payable at the current rate of ex- change for first-class bankers' bills on Paris on day of maturity. Commis- sion is arranged. Bills under this credit to be drawn at any time prior to May 1, 1892. Truly yours, John Mtjnkoe & Co. 16. Byles on Bills (16th ed.), p. 111. 17. Scribner v. Rutherford, 65 Iowa, 551, 22 N. W. 670. § 19. Bonds and Coupons. 37 exchange, drawn for any amount which may be advanced to the letter-bearer.-'* In such a case the promisor will be bound and any person who takes a bill on the credit of the letter will have his remedy against the person upon whom the bill is drawn in the same manner and to the same extent as though the bill had been regularly presented and accepted.^* I 19. Bonds and coupons. Bonds is'sued by the Federal government and by States, munici- palities, corporations, and individuals have many of the attributes of commercial paper and are properly classified and treated as such. They are obligations issued to secure the payment of the sums named at the places and dates specified therein. They are generally drawn in negotiable form, are under seal, and pass by a mere delivery.^* They are sometimes issued with coupons con- nected therewith, which represent the interest due on the sums named in the bonds, and are payable at the times and places stated therein. Each coupon is in itself a separate instrument contain- ing a distinct and independent promise to pay the sum named, and bears a closer analogy to a promissory note than does the bond. Coupon bonds payable to bearer possess all the qualities of nego- tiable paper.^^ It is not necessary that the holder of coupons, in order to recover on them, should own the bonds from which they 18. See Daniel on Negotiable In- Morris Canal & Bank. Co. v. Fisher, 9 struments (4th ed.), § 1795. N. J. Eq. 667, 64 Am. Dec. 423; Con- 19. Coolidge v. Payson, 2 Wheat, neetieut Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Cleve- (U. S.) 66, 4 L. Ed. 185; Schimmel- land, C. & C. K. E. Co., 41 Barb. (N. pennich v. Bayard, 1 Pet. (U. S.) 264, Y.) 9. 7 L. Ed. 138; Townsley v. Sumrail, 2 The bond of a railroad corporation. Pet. (U. S.) 181, 7 L. Ed. 386; Boyce payable to A. B., or his assigns, is in V. Edwards, 4 Pet. (U. S.) Ill, 7 L. Ed. the nature of commercial paper, nego- 799; Bayard v. Lathy;, Fed. Cas. No. tiable by delivery under an assignment 1,131 ; Eussell v. Wiggin, Fed. Cas. No. in blank, and is liot a specialty, sub- 12,165; Cassel v. Dows, Fed. Cas. No. jeet to equities between the corpora- 2,502 ; Kennedy v. Geddes, 8 Port, tion and the person named in the bond (Ala.) 263, 33 Am. Dec. 289; Second as the primary payee. Brainerd v. Nat. Bank v. Diefendorf, 90 111. 396; N. Y. & H. R. R. Co., 25 N. Y. 496. Beach v. State Bank, 2 Ind. 488; 21. Thompson v. County of Lee, 3 Vance v. Ward, 32 Ky. 95; Scott v. Wall. (U. S.) 327, 18 L. Ed. 177; McLellan, 2 Me. 199; Wilson v. Cle- Mercer v. Hackett, 1 Wall. (U. S.) 83, ments, 3 Mass. 1 ; Banorgee v. Hovey, 17 L. Ed. 548 ; Gelpcke v. Dubuque, 1 5 Mass. 11, 4 Am. Dec. 17; Woodward Wall. (U. S.) 175, 17 L. Ed. 520; V. GrifBts-Marshall Co., 43 Minn. 260, New Albany, L. & C. Plankroad Co. v. 45 N. W. 433; Ulster County Bank v. Smith, 23 Ind. 353; Strauss v. United McFarline, 5 Hill (N. Y.), 432. Tel. Co., 164 Mass. 130, 41 N. E. 57; 20. Reid v. Bank of Mobile, 70 Ala. Mason v. Prick, 105 Pa. St. 162, 51 199 ; Carr v. Le Fevre, 27 Pa. St. Am. Rep. 191 ; Langston v. So. Car. R. 413; Craig v. Vicksburg, 31 Miss. 216; Co., 2 8. C. 248. 38 Nature and Origin. § 20. were detached.^ The coupons are drawn so that they can be sep- arated from the bonds, and like the bonds are negotiable f^ and the owner of them can sue without the production of the bonds to which they were attached, or without being interested in them.^* It has been held, however, in New York, that where coupons pay- able to bearer, refer to the bonds for the interest for which they are issued, and the bonds refer to the mortgage securing them, for conditions limiting or explaining them, the coupons are not nego- tiable.=^ § 20. Certificates of stock. Certificates of stock of corporations are not contracts or prom- ises for the payment of money, but are rather the evidence of the holder's title to his share in the franchises and assets of the cor- poration of which he is a member.^^ As Daniels says : "A share in the capital stock of a corporation is not a debt, nor money, nor a security for money, but is a species of incorporeal personal property." ^^ Such certificates, being mere evidences of title, 22. Thompson v. County of Lee, 3 that effect, on the part of the party Wall. (U. S.) 83, 18 L. Ed. 177. issuing it, appears on the face thereof, 23. Ketchum v. Duncan, 96 U. S. unless authorized by legislative enaet- 659, 24 L. Ed. 868; Johnson v. Stark ment. Myers v. York & C. E. Co., 43 County, 24 111. 75; International Im- Me. 232; Jackson v. York & C. E. Co., provement Fund Trustees v. Lewis, 34 48 Me. 147 ; Augusta Bank v. Augusta, Fla. 424, 16 South. 325, 43 Am. St. 49 Me. 507. Rep. 209; Evertsen v. National Bank, 25. McLelland v. Norfolk So. E. Co., 66 N. Y. 14, 23 Am. Eep. 9, affg. 4 HO N. Y. 469, 18 N. E. 237, 6 Am. St. Hun (N. Y.), 692; County of Beaver Eep. 397, 1 L. E. A. 299. V. Armstrong, 44 Pa. St. 63; Philadel- 26. Edwards on Notes and Bills, phia & E. R. E. Co. v. Smith, 105 Pa. p. 61. St. 195 ; Nashville v. First Nat. Bank, 27. Daiiiel on Negotiable Instru- 60 Tenn. 402. ments (4th ed.), § 1708a. See Allen 24. Thompson v. County of Lee, 3 v. Pegram, 16 Iowa, 173. Wall. U. S.) 83, 18 L. Ed. 177 ; Mason ^ share in capital stock is a species V. Frick, 105 Pa. St. 162, 51 Am. Eep. of incorporeal, intangible property, in 191_ the nature of a chose in action. Van- Where the bond on its face says that stone v. Goodwin, 42 Mo. App. 39. the interest is to be paid on presenta- And see generally the cases cited tion of the coupons annexed, it is in Century Digest (Vol. 12, " Corpora- equivalent to making the coupons pay- tions," § 166), among which are the able to bearer. Eockmuhl v. Pitts- following: burgh. Fed. Cas. No. 11,982. But United States. — Tappan v. Mer- where the coupons are in the hands chants' Nat. Bank, 19 Wall. (U. S.) of a person who took them after ma- 490, 22 L. Ed. 189. turity, they are subject to all equi- California. — Mattingly v. Eoach, 84 ties which properly attached to them Cal. 207, 23 Pae. 1117. in the hands of the first holder. Union Cormecticut. — North v. Forest, 15 Bank v. New Orleans, Fed. Cas. No. Conn. 400. 14,351. Indiana. — Seward v. City of Eiaing In Maine it has been held that a Sun, 79 Ind. 351. coupon disconnected from the bond is Kentucky. — Field v. Montlinan, 68 not negotiable, where no intention to Ky. 455. §20. Ceetificates of Stock. 39 are not negotiable in the same sense as other commercial paper, and the assignee thereof takes them subject to all equities existing against the assignor.^* They are sometimes termed gt^asi-negotia- ble instruments ; but this term does not define their nature and is unsatisfactory,^^ although the customs of stockbrokers and bank- ers, the manner in which they are framed, and the method used to transfer them, give them some of the characteristics and effects of negotiable instruments.^" L — McKeen v. North- ampton County, 49 Pa. St. 519, 88 Am. Dec. 515. 28. Chicago, R. I. & Pac. K. R. Co. V. Havard, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 392, 19 L. Ed. 117. In this case the court said: "Written contracts are not necessarily negotiable, simply because by their terms they inure to the benefit of the bearer. Doubtless the certificates of stock were assignable, and they would have been so if the word " bearer " had been omitted, but they were Hot negotiable instruments in the sense supposed by the appel- lants. Holders might transfer them, but the assignees took them subject to every equity in the hands of the original owner." Citing Mechanics' Bank v. Railroad Co., 13 N. Y. 599. Usages of stockbrokers to the con- trary, notwithstanding, a, certificate of shares of stock is not a negotiable in- strument. East Birmingham Land Co. V. Dennis, 85 Ala. 565, 5 South. 317, 7 Am. St. Rep. 73, 2 L. E. A. 836. See generally Sherwood v. Meadow Valley Min. Co., 50 Cal. 412; Bridge- port iBank v. N. Y. & N. H. R. R. Co., 30 Conn. 231; Hall v. Rose Hill & Evanston Road Co., 70 111. 673; Clark V. American Coal Co., 86 Iowa, 436, 53 N. W. 291, 17 L. E. A. 557; State v. Bank of the State, 45 Mo. 528 ; Wat- son V. Sidney F. Woody Co., 56 Mo. App. 145. In New York it has been held that certificates of stock in a business cor- poration, indorsed in blank, do not pos- sess the quality of complete negotia- bility accorded to commercial paper, to the extent of making a transfer to a purchaser in good faith for value equivalent to actual title, although there was no agency in the transfer- rer, and the certificate had been lost without the fault of the true owner, or had been obtained by theft or robbery. Knox V. Eden Musee Co., 145 N. Y. 441, 42 N". B. 998. 29. Daniel on Negotiable Instru- ments (4th ed.), § 1708; Lewis on Stocks, § 82. 30. While corporation stock certifi- cates do not possess all the qualities of commercial paper, they do possess some of them, and innocent parties dealing in them will be protected upon analogous principles, and, in a proper case, will be entitled to compel recog- nition as stockholders, where power ex- ists to issue new certificates, or to in- demnity if there is not. Jarvis v. Manhattan Beach Co., 148 N. Y. 652, 43 N. E. 68. CHAPTER II. Parties and Their Capacity. A. INCAPACITY OF PARTIES. § 31. General Statement. a. Early restriction on parties. b. Power to contract. { 23. Infants. a. Validity of contracts. b. Obligation of persons dealing with infants. c. Contracts for necessaries. d. Commercial paper of infants. e. Note or bill for necessaries. f. Eights of infant as payee and indorsee. g. Ratification after infant becomes of age. h. What constitutes ratification. i 33. Persons of Unsound Mind. a. In general. b. Presumptioh of sanity; notice, e. Contracts for necessaries. d. Bills and notes by persons of unsound mind. e. Indorsement by insane person; rights of innocent holder. { 34. Intoxicated Persons. a. Contracts generally. b. Promissory notes and bills of exchange. { 35. Married Women. a. Under the common law. b. Enabling statutes. c. Bills and notes of married women generally. d. Indorsement by married women. e. Reduction into possession. f. Joint notes of husband and wife. § 36. Alien Enemies. B. PERSONS ACTING IN FIDUCIARY CAPACITY. § 37. Executors and Administrators. a. In general. b. Bills and notes by executors and administrators. [40] Paeties and theie Capacity. 41 § 27. Executors and Administrators — continued. c. Rights of executors and administrators as to bills and notes of decedents. d. Indorsement by executor or administrator. e. Presentment for payment, notices, etc. f. Acts of one of two or more executors. g. Note due from administrator or executor. { 28. Trustees, Guardians, Committees, etc. C. PERSONS ACTING IN REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY. § 29. Agents. a. In general. b. Authority to make notes and accept bills. c. Liability of person signing as agent. (1) Statutory provision. (2) Liability in general. (3) How representative capacity to be indicated. (4) Disclosure of name of principal in body of instrument. (5) Parol evidence admissible to show intent. d. Signature by procuration; effect of. e. Liability of agent indorsing negotiable paper, or drawing bill of exchange. f. Negotiable instruments by public agents. i 30. Partners. a. In general; what constitutes a partnership. b. Authority of one partner to execute commercial paper in name of firm. c. Presumption in favor of validity of partnership paper executed by one partner. d. Commercial paper of trading and nontrading partnerships. e. Eights of iona fide holder. f. Signing firm name for accommodation or security. g. Negotiable paper in payment of individual debts of partner, h. Partnership paper in name of individual member. i. Commercial paper given by partner for use of firm. j. Liability of dormant partner. k. Effect of dissolution. 1. Notice of dishonor; presentment. § 31. Corporations. a. Power to execute commercial paper. b. Defense of ultra vires. c. Power to make or indorse for accommodation. d. Presumption in favor of validity of corporation paper. e. Power of ofBcers to issue commercial paper. f. Power of officers to transfer commercial paper. g. Form of notes and bills by corporations; form of indorsement. 42 Parties and theie Capacity. § 21. § 33. Municipal Corporations. a. Power to contract. b. Power to borrow money. c. Power to issue negotiable instruments. d. Power of oflScers to issue negotiable instruments. A. INCAPACITY OF PARTIES. § 31. General statement. a. Early restriction on parties. — Bills of excliange and promis- sory notes were originally strictly commercial instruments, con- fined in their use to transactions between merchants and traders.*^ But this limited use was soon extended, and bills of exchange were early recognized as binding upon all parties thereto, having power to contract, without regard to their vocation.^^ And the language of the Statute of 3 & 4 Anne, chapter 9, giving negotiability to promissory notes, included all persons within its terms without reference to whether they were merchants or traders.^* b. Power to contract. — The capacity to incur liability as a party to a bill or note is coextensive with capacity to contract.** The exceptions to the capacity of natural persons to bind them- selves by contract, are infancy, coverture, and insanity.*^ To these may also be added the total or partial incapacity of alien enemies and bankrupts. There are many and various principles affecting the rights and obligations of parties under an incapacity which will be hereafter discussed in their proper places. There may be a total incapacity of a person to make or draw a note or bill, and 31. Story on Promissory Notes (7tli pacity means power to contract so as ed. ) , § 62. It was anciently supposed to bind oneself. Authority means that, th? negotiability of bills of ex- power to contract on behalf of another change being due to the custom of mer- so as to bind him. Capacity to con- chants, only a merchant or one en- tract is the creation of law. Author- gaged in some trade could be liable as ity is derived from the act of the par- the drawer of such an instrument to ties themselves. Want of capacity is the indorsee thereof. Pairley v. Eoch, incurable. Want of authority may be 1 Lutw. 891; Bromwich v. Lloyd, 2 cured by ratification. Capacity or no Lutw. 1685. capacity is a question of law. Author- 32. Sarsfield v. Witherly, 2 Vent, ity or no authority is usually a, ques- 292 ; Hodges v. Steward, 1 Salk. 125, tiou of fact. Again, capacity to incur 12 Mod. 36. liability must be distinguished from 33. Story on Promissory Notes (7th capacity to transfer. An executed con- ed. ) , § 62. tract is often valid where an exeeu- 34. Ehiglish Bills of Exchange Act, tory contract cannot be enforced. An 1882, § 22. See Appendix; Chitty on indorsement usually consists of two Bills, p. 13. distinct contracts, one executed and Chalmers, in his work on Bills of the other executory. It transfers the Exchange (5th ed.), p. 60, distinguishes property in the bill, and it also in- between capacity and authority in the volves a contingent assumption of lia- f ollowing language : " Capacity must bility on the part of the indorser." bf) distinguished from authority. Ca- 35. Pollock on Contracts, p. 34. § 22. Infants ; Validity of Conteacts. 43 yet the same person may be capable of transferring, under certain conditions, such note or bill by indorsement or delivery. Every person, r^ardless of his incapacity, may be the recipient of the benefits of a note or bill as payee or indorsee ; although payment thereof should doubtless be made to the person legally representing such payee or indorsee.^® It is only important to consider how far and under what conditions persons under legal or natural inca- pacities may bind themselves as makers or indorsers of commercial paper. § 22. Infants. a. Validity of contracts. — By the common law a contract made by an infant is generally voidable at the infant's option, such option to be exercised either upon his attaining his majority or in a reasonable time afterward.^^ It has been stated that the declared rule in this country is, that contracts of an infant caused by his necessities, or manifestly for his advantage are valid and binding, while those manifestly to his hurt are void. Contracts falling between these classes are voidable.^* It is doubtful whether any contract made by an infant is absolutely void even if it is manifestly to his hurt. Many cases can be cited where the rule has been stated, but in nearly all of them the contracts in question were declared voidable, and the rule as so stated was not neces- sarily applied.^* The object of the law, which is the protection of 36. Parsons on Notes and Bills, v. Crandall, 4 Md. 435; Baker v. p. 66. Lovett, 6 Mass. 88, 4 Am. Dec. 88; 87. Pollock on Contracts, p. 34. Oliver v. Houdlett, 13 Mass. 237,7 Am. And see Bozeman v. Browning, 31 Ark. Dec. 134; Whitney v. Dutch, 14 Mass. 364; Strain v. Wright, 7 Ga. 568; 457, 7 Am. Dec. 229; Robinson v. Bryan v. Walton, 14 Ga. 185 ; Brecken- Weeks, 56 Me. 102. ridge's Heirs v. Ormsbee, 24 Ky. 236, 39. Pollock, in his work on Con- 19 Am. Dec. 71; Whitney V. Dutch, 14 tracts (p. 35), says: "It is corn- Mass. 457, 7 Am. Dec. 229. monly said that all agreement made 38. Philpot V. Bingham, 55 Ala. by an infant, if such that it cannot 435, 438. be for his benefit, is not merely void- When the court can pronounce the able, but absolutely void; though in contract to be to the infant's preju- general his contracts are only void- dice it is void, and when to his bene- able at his option. This distinction, fit, as for necessaries, it is good; and it is submitted, is in itself unreason- when the contract is of an uncertain able, and is supported by little or no nature, as to benefit or prejudice, it real authority, while there is con- is voidable only at the election of siderable authority against it. The the infant. Keane v. Baysott, 2 H. Bl. unreasonableness of it seems hardly 511; Wheaton v. East, 5 Yerg. 41. to need any demonstration. The ob- See also Kendrick v. Neisz, 17 Colo, ject of the law, which is the protec- 506, 30 Pac. 245 ; Green v. Wilding, tion of the infant, is amply secured by 59 Iowa, 679, 13 N. W. 761, 44 Am. not allowing the contract to be en- Rep. 696 ; Fridge v. State, 3 Gill & J. forced against him during his infancy, (Md.) 103, 20 Am. Dec. 463; Eidgely and leaving it in his option to affirm 44 Parties and theik Capacity. § 22. tlie infant, is amply secured by not allowing the contract to be enforced against him during his infancy, and leaving it in his option to affirm or repudiate it at his full age. In any event the acts of an infant vyhich have been declared by judicial author- ity to be absolutely void are very few, and many of the decisions on the subject have been overruled or modified by subsequent adjudications.*' Mr. Tyler summarizes his discussion on this sub- ject in the following language : " The only clear and definite proposition which can be extracted from the authorities is, that all acts of an infant which are incapable of being legally ratified, that is, all such acts as cannot be for the benefit of the infant, are or repudiate it at his full age. Mo-re- to him by any means short of in- over the distinction is arbitrary and fiieting a detriment on innocent per- doubtful, for it must always be diffi- sons, it is argued that such inflic- cult to say whether a particular con- tion must be unnecessary and unjust, tract cannot possibly be beneficial to To consider any acts of an infant ab- the party. As for the authorities the solutely void might operate to his word void is no doubt frequently used ; own protection, but it would in many but then it is likewise to be found in cases seriously affect the rights of per- cases where it is quite settled that the sons in no wise implicated in the in- coutract is in truth only voidable. The f ant's transactions, and might f re- fact is, that there is a constant con- quently be prejudicial to himself. It fusion in the books, and sometimes is thought, therefore, that it would even in recent books, between void and rarely be a greater indulgence to the voidable, so that the language of text- infant, and more for his advantage, writers, of judges, and even of the to allow him, when he comes of age. Legislature, is no safe guide apart and is capable of reconsidering what from actual decisions." he has done, either to ratify or affirm Chancellor Kent (2 Comm. 234) says: all his deeds and contracts, or to "It is held that a negotiable note break through and avoid them ; and it given by an infant, even for neces- is contended that this power should saries, is void, and his acceptance of be extended, as well to those acts a bill of exchange is void; and a bond which may turn out to the infant's with a penalty, though given for neces- disadvantage, as to those which are saries, is void. It must be admitted, apparently beneficial. The giving in- however, that the tendency of the mod- fants such power in general over all ern decisions is in favor of a very their acts will sufficiently secure them liberal extension of the rule, that the against the danger of being over- acts and contracts of infants . should reached by others ; for when the power be deemed voidable only, and subject is general, and all persons who deal to their election, when they become of with an infant know they are to be age, either to affirm or disallow them, at his mercy, this will take off from If their contracts were absolutely the temptation of imposing on him; void, it would follow as a consequence yet, since the infant is at liberty to that the contract could have no eflfect, rescue himself by avoiding the in- and the party contracting with the jurious contract, it seems no possible infant would be equally discharged." mischief could arise by suffering it in 40. Bingham, in his work on In- the meantime to hang in equilibrio, fancy (13-16), maintains that few of and deferring to pronounce any sen- the acts of an infant were absolutely tence upon it, since that would cur- void upon the ground, among others, tail the infant's privilege, and tase that it is a principle of the law off from his freedom of judging at to protect the infant against his all." This reasoning of Mr. Bingham own weakness ; " and if this pro- has the approval of Mr. Tyler, in his tection can be effectually secured work on Infancy and Coverture, § 10. §22. Dealings with Infants. 45 absolutely void, and these at the present day are reduced to a veiy small number." *^ b. Obligation of persons dealing with infants. — Persons deal- ing with an infant are bound, at their peril, to inquire and ascer- tain the real circumstances of the infant, and whether he is in a situation to bind himself by his contract, even for necessaries.^^ And even where the infant has falsely represented his age, and thereby induced another to enter into a contract with him, he is not estopped from pleading his infancy and avoiding the contract ; the obligation would seem to rest, in every case, upon the person dealing with a probable or possible infant to satisfy himself as to the legal capacity of such infant.*^ The doctrine above expressed has not gone without refutation ; there are many cases holding that in equity an infant, who falsely and fraudulently represented him- self to be of full age, was bound to pay the obligation entered into on' the faith of his representation.** 41. Tyler on Infancy, § 13. 43. Story v. Pery, 4 Car. & P. 526, 19 Eng. C. L. 508; Cook v. Deaton, 3 Car. & P. 114, 14 Eng. C. L. 232; Per- rin V. Wilson, 10 Mo. 451; Kline v. L'Amoureux, 2 Paige (N. Y.), 419. Persons are affected with constructive notice of the incapacity of infants to convey. Gray v. Turley, 110 Ind. 254, 11 N. E. 410. 43. Wieland v. Kobiek, 110 111. 16, 51 Am. Eep. 676; Price v. Jemnings, 62 Ind. Ill; Carpenter v. Carpenter, 45 Ind. 142; Bush v. Linthicum, 59 Md. 344; Merriam v. Cunningham, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 40; Baker v. Stone, 136 Mass. 405; Slayton v. Barry, 175 Mass. 513, 56 N. E. 574; Conrad t. Lane, 26 Minn. 389, 4 N. \'f. 695, 37 Am. Rep. 412; Ferguson v. Bobo, 54 Miss. 121; Burley v. Russell, 10 N. H. 184, 34 Am. Dec. 146; Studwell v. Shafter, 54 N. Y. 249; Whitcomb v. Joslyn, 51 Vt. 79, 31 Am. Rep. 678. In the ease of Slayton v. Barry, supra, it was held that an infant can- not be held liable in tort for deceit or conversion the proof of which requires the plaintiff to show that a contract, which by the infant's false representa- tions relative to his age he was in- duced to make and perform, was part and parcel of the fraudulent transac- tion. 44. Ex parte Unity, etc., Assn., 3 De Gex & J. (Eng.) 63. In the case of Rice v. Boyer, 108 Ind. 472, 9 N. E. 420, 422, the court " Our judgment, however, is that, where the infant does fraudu- lently and falsely represent that he is of full age, he is liable in an ac- tion ex delicto for the injury result- ing from the tort. This result does not involve a violation of the prin- ciple that an infant is not liable where the consequence would be an indirect enforcement of his contract; for the recovery is not upon the contract, as that is treated of no effect, nor is he made to pay the contract price of the article purchased by him, as he is only held to answer for the actual loss caused by his fraud. In holding him responsible for the consequences of his wrong, an equitable conclusion is reached, and one which strictly har- monizes with the general doctrine that an infant is liable for his torts. Nor does our conclusion invalidate the doe- trine that an infant has no power to deny his disability; for it concedes this, but affirms that he must answer for his positive fraud." Judge Pomeroy says, in his Equity Jurisprudence (Vol. 2, p. 465) : " If an infant procures an agreement to be made through false and fraudulent representations that he is of age, a court of equity will enforce his lia- bility as though he were an adult, and may cancel a conveyance or executed contract obtained by fraud." See also Pittsburgh, etc., Co. v. Adams, 105 Ind. 151, 5 N. E. 187; Dil- 46 Parties and theie Capacity. §22. c. Contracts for necessaries. — An exception exists as to infanta' contracts for necessaries. An infant is liable upon his contracts for necessaries for himself, or his family, if he have one, suitable to his or their condition.*® It must appear in all cases that the thiags furnished were actually necessary, of reasonable prices, and suitable to the infant's degree and estate, considerations which regularly must be left to the jury.*® When an infant is at home under the care of his father, and supported by him, he cannot be made liable for necessaries.*^ It must appear that the infant has no other means of obtaining such necessaries, except by the pledge of his own personal credit.*® If the necessaries were furnished on Ion V. Burnham, 43 Kan. 77, 22 Pac. 1016; Oobbey v. Buchanan, 48 Neb. 391, 67 N. W. 176; Eaton v. Hill, 50 N. H. 235; Hall v. Butterfield, "59 N. H. 354; Pemberton Building & Loan Assn. v. Adams, 53 N. J. Bq. 258, 31 Atl. 28; Eckstein v. Frank, 1 Daly (N. Y.), 334. 45. Indiana. — Hobbs v. Godlove, 17 Ind. 359; Wright v. McLarinan, 92 Ind. 103; Fruehey v. Eagleson, 15 Ind. App. 88, 43 N. E. 146. Iowa. — Green v. Wilding, 59 Iowa, 679, 13 N. W. 76, 44 Am. Eep. 696. Kentucky. — Bonney v. Reardin, 69 Ky. 34. Maryland. — Levering v. Heighe, 2 Md. Ch. 81; Anderson v. Smith, 33 Md. 465. Massachusetts. — Stone v. Dennison, 13 Pick. 1, 23 Am. Dec. 654. Michigan. — Squier v. Hydliflf, 9 Mich. 274. New York. — Gay v. Ballou, 4 Wend. 403, 21 Am. Dec. 158. Pennsylvania. — Rundel v. Keeler, 7 Watts, 237; Watson v. Hensel, 7 Watts, 344; Appeal of Werner, 91 Pa. St. 222. Tennessee. — McMinn v. Richmonds, 6 Yerg. 9; McGaU v. Marshall, 7 Humph. 121. The reason for the rule. — It has been stated by Parsons (Contracts [3d ed.], 244, 245) : " It is permitted for his own sake that an infant may make a, valid contract for these things; or otherwise, whatever his heed, he might not be able to obtain food, shelter, or raiment. And the principles which govern this rule show plainly that it is intended only for his benefit, and is regarded and treated as an exception to a general rule." Tyler quotes from Matthew Bacon who lays it down that infants are ab- solutely bound by their contracts in benignity to themselves, "for if they were not allowed to bind themselves for necessaries, no person would trust them, in which case they would be in worse circumstances than persons of full age." Tyler on Infancy, § 57. 46. Ive V. Chester, Cro. Jac. (Eng.) 560; Jordan v. Coffield, 70 N. Y. 110; Rivers v. Gregg, 5 Rich. Eq. (S. C.y 274. Question for jury. — The following cases are to the effect that the ques- tion as to whether certain articles are suitable to the condition and estate of the infant is for the determination of the jury. Stanton v. Willson, 3 Day (Conn.), 37, 3 Am. Dec. 255; Henderson v. Pox, 5 Ind. 489; Garr V. Haskett, 86 Ind. 373; Bonney v. Reardin, 6 Bush (Ky.), 34; Swift v. Bennett, 10 Cush. (Mass.) 436; Mer- riam v. Cunningham, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 40; Davis v. Caldwell, 12 Cush. (Mass.) 512; Lynel v. Johnson, 109 Mich. 640, 67 N. W. 908; Ducell v. Lewenthal, 57 Miss. 331, 34 Am. Rep. 449 ; Cobbey v. Buchanan, 48 Neb. 391, 67 N. W. 176; Johnson v. Lines, 6 Watts (Pa.), 80, 40 Am. Dec. 542; Glover v. Ott's Admr., 1 MeCord (S; C), 572; Bent v. Manning, 10 Vt. 225. 47. Perrin v, Willson, 10 Mo. 451; Angel V. McLellan, 16 Mass. 28, 8 Am. Dec. 118; Smith v. Young, 19 N. C. 26; Hyman v. Cain, 48 N. C. 111. 48. Tyler on Infancy, etc., § 58; Bradley v. Pratt, 23 Vt. 378; Brent V. Williams, 79 Miss. 355, 30 South. 713. § 22. Commercial Paper of Ibtfants. 47 the credit of the parent or guardian with whom the infant lives, he cannot be held liable therefor ;** and the fact that the parent of an infant is poor and unable to pay for necessaries will not war- rant a recovery against the inf ant.*° Contracts for the purchase of articles used by the infant in carrying on his business are not necessaries for which he may be held liable. ^^ But a husband, though an infant, is liable for necessaries furnished his wife.^"^ And when an infant borrows money to purchase necessaries, or procures another to pay for him a debt contracted for necessaries, he is liable. ^^ d. Commercial paper of infants. — There are a number of early cases in this country which lay down the rule that a negotiable instrument executed by an infant is void, and that no power exists in the infant by ratification or affirmance to give effect to stich an instrument.^* This doctrine seems to have been discarded and in its place is substituted the rule that the negotiable instrument of an infant is merely voidable and not void,®" and that a promise to pay, made by the infant after he attains his full age, renders the instrument valid.®® An infant cannot be bound by his acceptance of a bill of exchange, but having accepted such a bill, he may 49. Tharp v. Comielly, 48 Mo. App. born, 13 6a. 467; Price v. Sanders, 60 59. Ind. 310; Cole v. Seeley, 25 Vt. 220. 50. Hoyt V. Casey, 114 Mass. 397, 53. Guthrie v. Morris, 22 Ark. 411; 19 Am. Rep. 371. Hickman v. Hall's Admrs., 15 Ky. 338; 51. Articles purchased by an in- Kilgore v. Rich, 83 Me. 305, 22 Atl. fant for business, agricultural, or com- 176, 23 Am. St. Rep. 780, 12 L. R. A. mercial purposes are not necessaries, S59; Swift v. Bennett, 64 Mass. 436; and upon restoration of the property Smith v. Oliphant, 4 N. Y. Super. Ct. lie may recover the consideration paid 306; Randall v. Sweet, 1 Den. (N. Y.) for it. House v. Alexander, 105 Ind. 460. 109, 4 N. E. 891, 5o Am. Rep. 189. 54. Beeler v. Young, 1 Bibb (Ky.), In the case of Ryan v. Smith, 165 519; Weutworth v. Wentworth, 5 N. H. Mass. 303, 43 N. E. 109, it was held 410; ' Penton v. White, 4 N. J. L. that articles of furniture designed for 100; Mcilinn v. Rlchmonds, 14 Tenn. use iii furnishing a barber shop, pur- 9; Swasey v. Vanderheyden's Admr., chased by a minor having no means 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 33; Nichols & of support, except what he earned, are Shepard Co. v. Snyder, 78 Minn. 461, not necessaries, and he may therefore 81 N. W. 516. repudiate liis contract. See also De- 55. Everson v. Carpenter, 17 Wend, cell V. Lawrence, 57 Miss. 331, 34 Am. (N. Y.) 419; Goodsell v. Myers, 3 Rep. 449; Wood v. Losey, 50 Mich. Wend. (N. Y.) 479; Best v. Givens, 475, 15 N. W. 557 ; Paul v. Smith, 41 42 Ky. 72 ; Wright v. Steele, 2 N. H. Mo. App. 275. As to recovery of 51; Jeffords v. Ringgold, 6 Ala. 544; money paid on contract for eondi- Fant v. Cathoart, 8 Ala. 725; Little tional sale of bicycle to an infant, see v. Duncan, 9 Rich. L. (S. C.) 55, 64 Gillis V. Goodwin, 188 Mass. 140, 61 Am. Dee. 760; Stokes v. Brown, 4 N. E. 813; Rice v. Butler, 160 N. Y. Chandl. (Wis.) 39. 518, 55 N. E. 275. 56. Tyler on Infancy, etc., § 16; 52. Cantine v. Phillips' Admr., 5 Taflft v. Sergeant, 18 Barb. (N. Y.) Harr. (Del.) 428; Nicholson v. Wil- 320. 48 Parties and theie Capacity. § 22. render it valid by a new promise or by ratification after he comes of age.^'^ Where a person of full age accepts a bill which was drawn on him while an infant, he is liable thereon.^* e. Note or hill for necessaries. — It has been held that a nego- tiable note given by an infant, even for necessaries, was void."* The reason given was that if the note was valid in the first instance as a negotiable instrument, the consideration could not be inquired into when it is in the hands of a hona fide holder, and the infant would thereby be precluded from questioning the consideration.** If the note for necessaries was nonnegotiable and in the hands of the payee, an action against the infant might be maintained thereon by the payee, and an inquiry into the value of the neces- saries might be had and judgment rendered therefor.®^ And this is also true in respect to a note or bill negotiable in form so long as it remains in the hands of the payee. ®^ Infants are liable for necessaries, and they may bind themselves therefor provided they 57. Williams v. Harrison, 3 Salk. ing infancy, -with, or witkout new con- (Eng.) 197; Hunt v. Massey, 5 Barn, sideratiooi for such promise or ratifi- & A. (Eng.) 902; Edwards on Bills cation after full age. and Notes, p. 67. 59- Swasey v. Vanderheyden, 10 Byles says (Byles on Bills [lethed.], J*"^^^- <^; Y.) 33. p. 68) : "The acceptance of an in- „^0. Beeler v. Young, 1 Bibb (Ky.), fant was at all events invalid and ^l?; McMinn v. Eichmonds. 6 Yerg. could not be confirmed by ^ promise ^^ -j ^^^^^^^ ^^ to pay made after he was or age, ana on after action brought. And all his " g^; garle v. Keed, 10 Mete. (Mass.) contracts made in the course of trade gg^ j„ ^^j^j^ ^^^^ j^. ^^^^ ^^^^ ^-^^^ ^ ^^_ were formerly considered absolutely „otiable note given by an infant was void and incapable of confirmation, ^^t yoj^ jn ^]^ hands of the promisee; though the moral obligation to fulfil and in a suit thereon by the promisee, them would support an express prom- ^e may show that it was given, in ise to pay after full age, and before whole or in part, for necessaries, and action brought. may recover thereon as much as the 58. Byles on Bills (16th ed.), p. 69; necessaries for which it was given Stevens v. Jackson, 4 Campb. (Eng.) ^ere reasonably worth and no more. 164. Shaw, C. J., said: "Under these English Infants' Relief Act (37 & views we consider this note, in the 38 Vict., chap. 62) is to the effect that hands of the promisee, as the simple all contracts, whether by specialty or contract of the defendant for the pay- simple contract, entered into by in- ment of money; and there being no fants to repay money lent or to be consideration expressed, the infancy of leait, or for goods supplied or to be the promisor being shown is prima supplied (other than contracts for facie a bar to the action. But as the necessaries), and all accounts stated consideration is open to inquiry, we with infants shall be absolutely void; think it is competent for the plaintiff provided that the act sliall apply to to show that it was given for the price such contracts as were voidable at of necessaries, in which he will recover the time of its passage. The act only so much of the note as shall ap- further provides thait no action shall pear to have been given for Heces- be brought whereby to charge any per- saries at their fair value, without re- son upon any promise made after full gard to the price stipulated to be paid age to pay any debt contracted dur- by the minor." § 22. Note of Infaitt foe Necessaeiss. 49 do not agree to pay more than they are reasonably worth.** The payee of a note, given for such necessaries, whether negotiable or otherwise, may recover thereon to the extent of the value of such necessaries. If the payee transfers such note by indorsement to an innocent indorsee the indorsee has his remedy against the payee, although he may be prevented from recovering from the maker who pleads his infancy. This would seem to be the rule deduced from the weight of authority, both of the courts and of text- writers.** The doctrine is not without its opponents. There are a few cases to the effect that an infant is bound by his note or bill 63. Locke v. Smith, 41 N. H. 346. a note, while admitting a liability for 64. Rights of indorsee against in- th« value of the necessaries, might f ant. — ^Chitty says ( Chitty on Bills, seem technical rather than substantial, p. 19) : "And though it has been Not so, however, if the note were ne- considered that a single bill or bond gotiable and negotiated, for now it for the exact sum due, and not in might pass for value into the hands penalty, given for necessaries, is ob- of innocent third parties, and eitheir ligatory upon an infant, yet an in- its character would protect it from dorsee of a bill or note cannot sue an all inquiry into consideration, which infant upon either of these instru- might injure the infant, or for hia ments, though given for such considera- protection this inquiry might be made, tion; and as an infant cannot state and then the document would lose the an account, it seems to be the better chief peculiarity and characteristic of opinion that these instruments are not negotiable paper." in any case available against infants, gtory on Bills of Exchange (§84) even between the original parties." states the rule as follows : " And In Kyd on Bills it is urged, that if even a bill of exchange given for neces- a simple bill for necessaries be valid, saries would seem to be invalid; for there seems no reason why a bill or aji infant is not capable of binding note for the same consideration should himself to pay a specific sum, even not be binding; and it has been ob- for necessaries; but only what they served that this circumstance of a sin- are worth; and a fortiori, he is not gle bill for necessaries being valid, liable, according to many authorities, seems to aflford an argument from anal- on a bill of exchange, given for neces- ogy to show that a promissory note saries, which is negotiable; for that given by an infant for necessaries might involve him in liability to third would be binding, if payable only to persons." the person who supplied them, though Edwards on Bills and Notes (p. 65) he cannot be bound by his signature to contains the following: "During his a negotiable bill or note, as that not minority, the infant cannot make a only prima facie admits the debt, and contract waiving the privilege ac- operates as an account stated, but, corded to him by law. Though he if valid, would render him liable to gives his negotiable note for neces- an action at a suit of an indorsee, in saries, the holder in an action upon which the amount of the original debt it must show that it was so given, and could not be disputed. Williams v. he can then recover only so much as Watts, 1 Campb. (Eng.) 522 (notes), the things furnished were reasonably 1 Parsons on Bills and Notes (p. 69) worth. But here the recovery is not has the following: "If, however, through the force of the terms used the action were on a simple promissory in the note ; on the contrary it pro- note, not negotiable, or even on a ne- oeeds upon due original consideration, gotiable note which had not been ne- thus destroying the negotiability of gotiated, an inquiry into the considera- the instrument so far as that depends tion might be made, which would seem upon the legal presumption that it haa to open the whole question; and the been given for value, or upon the ob- reason for denying the validity of such ligation of the promise." 4 50 Paeties and theie Capacity. § 22. given for necessaries in the hands of an indorsee.** And among text-writers, Mr. Daniels has quite emphatically dissented.** And indeed it is somewhat incongruous to permit a payee, who has had more opportunity to ascertain the age and circumstances of the infant, to recover from him upon such a note and to restrict a similar right of the indorsee, who may be in entire ignorance of the facts attending the transaction. A more reasonable rule would be to permit the indorsee the privilege accorded the payee, of show- ing the value of the necessaries and recovering the amount thereof. The infant would be amply protected by such a course, since the law does not require that he should be afforded more protection than for an amount in excess of the actual value of the necessaries furnished. f. Rights of infant as payee and indorsee. — An infant may become the payee of a note or the drawee of a bill ; he may recover thereon, and his rights in respect thereto are the same aa though he were an adult. Since the consideration moves from another to himself, it must be for his benefit.*^ The law conferring upon an infant th« special privilege of immunity from his contracts, is solely for his benefit and protection ; to deny him the privilege of enforcing obligations from others to himself would be an injury and a hardship. An infant to whom a note or bill is payable or to whom it has been transferred by indorsement may himself trans- fer such note or bill to another person, who will take and hold the same as against all parties prior to the infant.*® The infant would be injuriously affected by the existence of any other rule ; if notes and bills of which he is the holder were incapable of transfer their value would be materially impaired.*^ The English Bills of Ex- 65. Du Bois V. Wheddon, 4 McCord for a note payable to her becomes the (S. C), 221; Haine v. Tarrant, 2 property of her husband; and, fur- Hill (S. C), 400. ther, her acts are absolutely void, 66. Daniel on Neg. Insta. (4th ed.), whereas those of an infant are void- § 226. able only. It would be absurd to al- 67. Story on Promissory Notes, § 79 ; low one, who has made a promise to Nightingale v. Withlngton, 15 Mass. pay to one who is an infant, or his 272. order, to refuse to pay the money to 68. Indorsement by infant. — That one, to whom the infant had ordered an infant may indorse a negotiable it to be paid, in direct violation of his promissory note, or bill of exchange, promise ; and it would impair the value made payable to him, so as to trans- of such contracts in the hands of in- fer the property to an indorsee, for a fants, if they were unable to raise valuable consideration, seems to be well money on them, as others may do. settled in the law merchant; and is Nightingale v. Withington, 15 Mass. no ways repugnant to the principles of 272, per Parker, C. J. the common law. Such indorsement is 69. Nightingale v. Withington, 15 not like one made by a feme covert; Mass. 272. And see also Grey v. § 22. Katifi CATION BY Infant. 51 change Act of 1882, in recognition of the justice of this rule, has declared that " where a bill is drawn or indorsed by an infant, minor, or corporation having no capacity or power to incur lia- bility on a bill, the drawing or indorsement entitles the holder to receive payment of the bill, and to enforce it against any other party thereto." ''" A similar provision is contained in the Nego- tiable Instruments Law in force in many of the American States.^^ The infant may avoid the effect of his indorsement, " or by giving sufficient notice to all antecedent parties of his avoidance, fur- nish to them a valid defense against the claim of the indorsee." ''^ The indorsement is to be treated as a voidable contract, subject to the avoidance by the infant. But until it is avoided, it is to be deemed, in respect to all antecedent parties, as a good and valid transfer. g. Ratification after infant becomes of age. — As has already been said the contracts of infants are not generally void, but can be made valid by them when they become of full age.''* The note or bill of an infant is subject to ratification by him as an adult.''* When duly ratified, the bill or note may be negotiated, and pos- sesses in all respects the same qualities as if executed by an. adult.''* Cooper, 3 Doug. (Eng.) 655; Dray- (Eng.) 902; Fant v. Oathcart, 8 Ala. ton V. Dale, 2 B. & C. (Eng.) 293, 725; West v. Penny, 16 Ala. 186; 299; Pitt V. Chappelow, 8 Mees. & Goodsell v. Myers, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) W. (Eng.) 616; Frazier v. Massey, 379; Cheshire v. Barrett, 4 MeCord 14 Ind. 382; Garner v. Cook, 30 Ind. (S. C), 241. 331; Hardy v. Waters, 38 Me. 450; Effect of ratification. — The case of Burke v. Allen, 29 N. H. 116, 61 Am. Reed v. Batchelder, 1 Mete. (Mass.) Dee. 642. 559, is a leading case in respect to the- 70. English Bills of Exchange Act, effect of ratification by an adult of a. 1882, § 22 (2). negotiable note executed by him as an 71. Neg. Inst. Law (N. Y.), § 41, infant. The note was made by the which is as follows: defendant as an infant payable to R. § 41. Effect of indorsement by infant & D., and by them transferred to the or corporation. — The indorsement or plaintiff. The court said : " The ques- assignment of the instrument by a cor- tion is, whether, as this was a ne- pora,tion or by an infant passes the gotiable note payable to R. & D. property therein, notwithstanding that or bearer, and ratified by a new from want of capacity the corpora- promise to them whilst they re- tion or infant may incur no liability mained the holders, they could make therein. a good title by delivery to the 72. Story on Promissory Notes, § 80. plaintiff, Robert Reed, so as to en- 73. Hyer v. Hatt, Fed. Cas. No. able him to bring the action in hia 6,977; Vaugh v. Parr, 20 Ark. 600. own name. The new promise to pay And see oases cited in note 37, p. 43, was made to H. R. of the firm of R. ante. & D. The effect of this was to ratify 74. Wright v. Steele, 2 N. H. 51; and confirm the contract, and give it Goodsell V. Myers, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) the same legal effect as if the prom- 479; Stokes V. Brown, 4 Chandl.( Wis.) isor had been of legal capacity to 39. make the note when it was made. This 75. Hunt V. Massey, 5 B. & Ad. made it a good negotiable note from 52 Parties and theie Capacity. § 22. h. What constitutes ratification. — Statutes frequently provide that the ratification of an infant's contract in order to bind him when he becomes of age must be in writing.'^® Under such statutes any, written instrument signed by the party, which, in the case of adults, would have amounted to the adoption of the act of an agent, will, in the case of an infant, who has attained his majority, amount to a ratification." Nor is it necessary that the writing should be addressed or dated, or that the sum for which the promisor is to be bound should be shown therein.^* But at com- mon law, which is in force in almost all of the United States, a verbal promise or ratification is sufiicient.™ The ratification must be the free an.d voluntary act of the former infant j*** and it has been frequently held, although there are conflicting authorities, that time, according to ita tenor, trans- debt contracted during infancy, or ferable by delivery; of course, when upon any ratification made a.fter full transferred to Robert Reed, the plain- age of any promise or contract made tiff, he took it as a negotiable note, during infancy, with or without new and may maintain an action on it. consideration for such promise or rati- This deprives the promisor of none of fication after full age. his immunities as an infant, because This act in effect repeals Lord Xen- the law considers him as having full terden's Act (9 Geo. IV, chap. 14, § 5), capacity when the ratification was which enacted, " that no action shall made, and without such ratification be maintained whereby to charge any no action would lie." person upon any promise made after A reply to a plea of infancy, in an full age to pay any debt contracted action upon a note, which alleges that, during infancy, unless such promise or after the defendant came of age, and ratification shall be made by some before suit brought, he ratified his exe- writing signed by the party to be cution of such mote by entering into charged therewith." au agreement with the plaintiff and Many of the American States, such his authorized agent, in which he as Arkansas, Kentucky, Maine, Missis- promised to pay the same, is not de- sippi, Missouri, New Jersey, South murrable, since the note of an infant Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia, is merely voidable, and may be rati- have statutes containing substantially fied without a new consideration, the same provisions. Heady v. Boden, 4 Ind. App. 475, 30 77. Harris v. Wall, 1 Exch. (Eng.) N. E. 1119. 122. 76. By the English Infants' Relief 78. Hartley v. Wharton, 11 Ad. & El. Act (37 & 38 Vict., chap. 62, § 1), it (Eng.) 934. Under the American stat- is provided that all contracts, whether utes, see Thurlow v. Gilmour, 40 Me. by specialty or simple contract, en- 378; Bird v. Swain, 79 Me. 529, 11 Atl. tered into by infants to repay money 421; Stern v. Freeman, 4 Mete. (Ky.) lent or to be lent, or for goods sup- 309. plied or to be supplied (other than 79. West v. Penny, 16 Ala. 186; contracts for necessaries), and all ac- Vaugh v. Parr, 20 Ark. 600; Kendrick counts stated with infants, shall be v. Neisz, 17 Colo. 506, 30 Pae. 245; absolutely void. The effect of this sec- Hoit v. Underbill, 10 N. H. 220, 34 tion is limited by a proviso to such as Am. Dee. 148; Halsey v. Reid, 4 Hun ai-e now by law voidable. (N. Y.), 777. Section 2 of this act is to the effect 80. Ford v. Phillips, 1 Pick. (Mass.) that ho action shall be brought whereby 202 ; Pitcher v. Turin Plank Road Co., to charge any person upon any prom- 10 Barb. (N. Y.) 436; McCormick V. ise^ made after full age, to pay any Walker, Fed. Cas. No. 8,728. .§22. Eatificatioit by Infaitt. 53 that when the ratification was made, it must have been known to the person making it, that he was not liable by law under his. contract.^^ It seems well settled at the present time that a mere acknowl- edgment of a debt by the infant after majority is insufScient as a ratification. There must be an express confirmation or new promise, voluntarily and deliberately made.^^ It is probable, how- ever, that the act of the infant, after attaining his majority, may be of such a nature as to raise an inference against him and in favor of the contract.*^ His tacit assent under such circum- 81. Pesto V. Roberts, 7 Bush (Ky.), 410 ; Smith v. Mayo, 9 Mass. 62 ; Ford V. Phillips, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 202; Cur- tin V. Patton, 11 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 305; McCormick v. Walker, Fed. Cas. No. 8,728. Contra are the following: Ameri- can Mortg. Co. V. Wright, 101 Ala. 658, 14 South. 399 ; Morse v. Wheeler, 4 Allen (Mass.), 570; Anderson v. Soward, 40 Ohio St. 325, 48 Am. Rep. 687. The infant is chargeable, upon becoming of age, with knowledge of the legal eflfect of his deed, previously made. Bentley v. Greer, 100 Ga. 35, 27 S. B. 974. 83. Greenleaf, in his work oil Evi- dence ( § 367 ) , says : " There is a dis- tinction between those acts and words which are necessary to ratify an ex- ecutory contract and those which are sufficient to ratify an executed con- tract. In the latter case any act amounting to an explicit acknowledg- ment of liability will operate as a ratification; as in the case of the pur- chase of land or goods, if, after com- ing of age, he continues to hold the property and treat it as his own. But in order to ratify an executory agree- ment, made during infancy, there must not only be an acknowledgmeint of lia- bility, but an express confirmation or new promise voluntarily and deliber- ately made by the infant upon his com- itig of age, and with the knowledge that he is not legally liable. An ex- plicit acknowledgment of indebtment, whether in terms or by a partial pay- ment, is not alone sufficient; for he may refuse to pay a debt which he ad- mits to be due." The following cases uphold this doc- trine : Connecticut. — Wilcox v. Roath, 12 Conn. 550. Georgia. — Martin v. Byrom, Dud. (Ga.) 203. Indiana. — Conklin v. Ogborn, 7 Ind. 553. Massachusetts. — Smith v. Mayo, 9 Mass. 62; Martin v. Mayo, 10 Mass. 137; Whitney v. Dutch, 14 Mass. 457; Ford V. Phillips, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 202; Thompson v. Lay, 4 Pick. (Mass.) 48; Proctor v. Lears, 4 Allen (Mass.), 95. Mississippi. — Edmunds v. Mister, 5& Miss. 765. Missouri.— BalkeT v. Kennett, 54 Mo. 82. JVew York. — -Millard v. Hewlett, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 301. North Carolina. — Alexander v. Hutoheson, 9 N. C. 535; Turner v. Gaither, 83 N. C. 357, 35 Am. Rep. 574; Bresee v. Stanley, 119 N. C. 278, 25 S. E. 870. Pennsylvania. — Hinely v. Margaritz, 3 Pa. St. 428. 83. Ratification inferred. — The ease of Dawson v. Lovejoy, 8 Me. 405, 23 Am. Dec. 526, was an action in as- sumpsit brought by the indorsee against the maker of a note. The defense was infancy. The case was submitted to the court on these facts: The note was given by the defendant while an infant, for a yoke of oxen pur- chased by him. On coming of age after the maturity of the note, he con- verted the oxen to his own use, and received the avails. The court said: " It seems to be a well-settled princi- ple that such contracts of an infant as the court can pronounce to be to his prejudice are void; such as are of an uncertain nature, as to benefit or prejudice, are voidable, and may be confirmed or avoided at his election, and such as are for his benefit, as for necessaries, instruction, and the like, 54 Paeties and theie Capacity. § 22. stances as will not excuse his silence has also been held to amount to a ratification of the contract.^ In the case of .Lawson v. Love- joy, an extract from the opinion therein being contained in the note, the retention by an infant, after becoming of age, of the avails of the sale of a pair of oxen, for the purchase price of which the infant had given his promissory note, was considered as suf- ficient to iinply a ratification of the validity of the note, and the plea of infancy was set aside.*^ There are many other cases hold- ing that a retention of the property after a notice to return it would be a ratification of the contract.** But if the infant had are valid. The law so far protects honest community are to be defrauded him, in the second class of contracts, of their property. The privilege is as to afford him an opportunity, when afforded for no such purpose. The arrived at full age, to consider his law requires of the infant the strict bargain, its probable tendency and performance of his engagement, if, sub- effect, to review the circumstances un- sequent to his arrival at age, it has der which it was made, and, having been ratified and confirmed, either by weighed its advantages and disadvan- a new promise, or by any act by which tages, to ratify or avoid it. If it be an acquiescence is implied, But if ratified, the original contract becomes there has been no such ratification and binding, and may be enforced. The he repudiate the contract, common ratification gives life and validity to honesty will not and legal principles the old promise, and, if the contract ought not to permit him to retain the be enforced at law, it will be by an ae- consideration which was the founda- tion on the original agreement, and tion of the promise he thus avoids. He not on the ratification. But a ratifi- should place himself and the person cation must, on the one hand, be some- with whom he contracted in the same thing more than a mere acknowledg- situation as if no contract had been ment of the debt; while, on the other, made. Surely he ought not to be per- it need not be a direct promise to mitted to keep all and pay nothing." pay or perform. A direct promise is, it ^^s then held that the conversion indeed, evidence of a ratiication but j^to cash of the property for which the not the only evidence. The contract ^^te was given, after the infant be- of an infant may be rendered as valid ^^^^ ^j ^^ ^^^ the retention of the when he arrives at full age, by his ^^^jj^ thereof, were a sufficient ratifi- mere acts, as by the most direct and ^^^j^^ ^^ ^.^^ ^^jj^j ^ g unequivocal promise. His confirma- ^^^ g^t Shepard, 92 Me. 160, 42 tion of the act or deed of his infancy . ,, „q» cj^o^.^, a^ j..j.c. iuv, i^ S t ^h^^^eif orL:^?or'i 'it: ^^- ^^^-^ ^- ^^oWnson, 7 Tex. 502. ^onable timt ererlroThirp^it^e ^^^.^^ GT-- - Green, 69 N. ^553; acts in favor of the contract, or from ?^\'^ 7" Dudley, 70 Me. 256; Wise v. his tacit assent, under circumstances ^°|^' 1° ^^- ^^Vf- Ct. 601. not to excuse his silence. * • * 85- Lawson v. Lovejoy, 8 Me. 405, The law wisely protects youth from ^3 Am. Dec. 526. the impositions of those who might be °°- Thomasson v. Boyd, 13 Ala. disposed to take advantage of their in- 419; Manning v. Johnson, 26 Ala. 446, experience, and compels them to the 62 Am. Dec. 734, in which the court performance of no engagements, or said: "If an infant after he arrives the payment of no debts contracted at age is shown to be possessed of the within age, except such as are for consideration paid him, and either dis- necessaries suited to their condition in poses of it so that he cannot restore life. But, while it affords this pro- it, or retains it for an unreasonable tection as a shield, it will not sanction length of time after attaining his ma- its use as an offensive weapon of injus- jority, this amounts to an affirmance tioe, by which the unsuspecting and of the contract. So likewise if it is § 23. PEESoirs OF Unsound Mind. 55 disposed of the consideration before arriving at his majority, as where the money paid to him under the contract had been spent or wasted by him,*^ or the property had been sold and the proceeds of the sale squandered or invested in other property/* the failure to return the property or repay the money would not be deemed a ratification.*^ And where a promissory note was given by an infant for money loaned, he may avoid the note without returning the amount of the loan unless it appears that the money loaned is still in his possession.®" § 33. Persons of unsound mind. a. In general — Persons of unsound mind are either lunatics, idiots, or other persons non compotes mentis from age, imbecility, or personal infirmity.®^ Since every contract presupposes that it is founded in the free and voluntary consent of each of the parties, which a person non compos mentis is unable to give, it was for- merly the rule that the contracts of such a person were utterly shown that he has power to restore v. Powers, 43 N. Y. 23, 3 Am. Eep. the thing that he received he cannot be 654 ; Allen v. Lardner, 78 Hun ( N. Y. ) , allowed to rescind without first mak- 603; Reynolds v. Curry, 100 111. 356; ing restoration. But if the considera- Dill v. Bowen, 54 Ind. 204. tion so paid was money, and there is 88. Leacox v. Griffith, 76 Iowa, 89; no proof that he was possessed of the Robbing v. Eaton, 10 N. H. 506 ; Nichol money so obtained after he attained v. Steger, 2 Tenn. Ch. 328, aflfd. in 8 his majority so as to be able to re- Lea (Tenn.), 393; Hangen v. Hach- store it to the purchaser, the infant meister, 17 Jones & S. (N. Y. ) 34; should not be required in a court of Petrie v. Williams, 68 Hun (^f. Y.), law to repay the amount he received 589, 23 N. Y. Supp. 237. as a prerequisite to the avoidance of 89. Walsh v. Young, 110 Mass. 396; his deed in a suit for the land." Price v. Furman, 27 Vt. 271, 65 Am. See also Eureka Co. v. Edwards, 71 Dec. 194; Wiser v. Lockwood's Estate, Ala. 248, 46 Am. Eep. 314; Curry v. 42 Vt. 720; Bedinger v. Wharton, 27 St. John Plow Co., 55 111. App. 82; Gratt. (Va.) 857. Burgett v. Barriek, 25 Kan. 527 ; Jen- 90. Miller v. Smith, 26 Minn. 248, kins V. Jenkins, 12 Iowa, 195; Mid- 2 N. W. 942, 37 Am. Rep. 407; Pem- dleton V. Hoge, 5 Bush (Ky.), 478; berton Bldg. & Loan Assn. v. Adams, Dana v. Combs, 6 Me. 86, 19 Am. Dec. 53 N. J. Eq. 258, 31 Atl. 280. 194; Boyden V. Boyden, 9 Mete. (Mass.) 91. Story on Promissory Notes, 519, in which case it was held that if § 101. Coke has enumerated four an infant, after coming of age, retains different classes of persons who are property received by him for his own deemed in law to be non compotes use, or sells or otherwise disposes of mentis: First, an idiot or a fool na- it, such action will be held to be an tural; second, he was of good and affirmance of the contract, and he can- sound mind and memory, but by the not defeat an action on the note for act of God has lost it; third, a luna- the purchase price; Aldrich v. Grimes, tic, lunaticus qui gaudet litcidis in- 10 N. H. 194; Stern v. Freeman, 61 iervalUs, who sometimes is of good, Ky. 309; In re Kimmel, 1 Walk. (Pa.) sound mind and memory, and some- 290; Weed v. Beebe, 21 Vt. 495. times non compos mentis; fourth, one 87. Chandler v. Simmons, 97 Mass. who is non compos mentis by his own 514, 93 Am. Dec. 117; Miller v. Smith, act, as a drunkard. Coke Litt. 247o; 26 Minn, 248, 37 Am. Eep. 407; Walsh 4 Coke, 124. See Black L. Diet., p. 821. 56 Parties and theib Capacity. § 23. void.®* This rule no longer obtains, at least not to the same extent ; and it seems now to be generally agreed that the contracts of an insane person before office found are voidable only, and not abso- lutely void,®^ and may, upon the removal of the disability, or by the act of a lawfully appointed guardian, be disaffirmed or ratified.^* b. Presumption of sanity j notice. — Every person is presumed to be of sound mind and capable in that respect of making a con- tract until the contrary appears. If a person enters into a contract with a person whom he knows to be insane, there is no valid con- tract; for unsoundness of mind would be a good defense to an action upon a contract, if it could be shown that the defendant was not of capacity to contract, and the plaintiff knew it.®^ But 92. Story on Promissory Notes, Flach v. Gottschalk Co., 88 Md. 368, § 101; Byles on Bills {16th ed.), 41 Atl. 908 ; Townsend v. Pepperill, 99 p. 72. Furiosus nullum negotium, Mass. 40 ; Dennett v. Dennett, 44 N. H. gere potest, quia non intelUgit quid 531, 84 Am. Dec. 97; Odell v. Buck, 21 agit. Inst. Lib. 3, tit. 20, § 8; Digest, Wend. (N. Y.) 142; Jackson v. Gu- Lib. 50, tit. 7, pp. 5, 40, 124. maer, 2 Cow. (N. Y.) 552; Haynes v. 93. Chattel mortgage made by an Scott, 35 App. Div. (N. Y.) 515, 54 insane person, apparently sane and not N. Y. Supp. 844; Beals v. See, 10 Pa. judicially pronounced insane, vests St. 56, 49 Am. Dec. 573 ; Dodds v. Wil- title, and, after default, the right of son, 3 Brev. (S. C.) 389; Sims v. possession in the innocent mortgagee, McLure, 8 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 286, 70 and the mortgagee having acquired Am. Dec. 196; .^tna L. Ins. Co. v. possession, the chattels cannot be re- Sellers, 154 Ind. 370, 56 N. E. 97; covered from the mortgagee without Boyer v. Berryman, 123 Ind. 451, 24 disaflBrmance. Fay v. Burditt, 81 Ind. N. E. 249. 433, 42 Am. Rep. 142, in which the 94. The next friend of a non compos court said: "It is now the well-set- mentis is wholly without authority to tied doctrine of this court, that the make a contract that is binding upon contracts of the unsound in mind, her or her estate, and it is only by a whose incapacity has not been judi- guardian regularly appointed that coH- cially determined, are not void, but tracts can be made bind upon a per- only voidable, and may, upon the re- son non compos mentis. Page v. Louis- moval of the disability, or by the act ville & Nash. R. R. Co. (Ala.), 29 of a lawfully appointed guardian, be South. 676. disaffirmed or ratified." Citing Mus- 95. Molton v. Camroux, 2 Exch. selman v. Cravens, 47 Ind. 1; Nichol (Eng.) 501; Browne v. Joddrell, 3 V. Thomas, 53 Ind. 42; Freed v. Car. & P. (Eng.) 30; Dalie v. Kirk- Brown, 55 Ind. 310; Wray v. Chand- ^all, 8 Car. & P. (Eng.) 679; Gore ler, 64 Ind. 146; Hardenbrook v. Sher- y. Gibson, 13 Mees. & W. (Eng.) 623. wood, 72 Ind. 403; Sehuff v. Ransom, impUed notice.— If one contract 79 Ind. 458. with a lunatic, alid under such a con- Generally, see Ex p. Northing- tract furnish him money, and render ton, 37 Ala. 496, 79 Am. Dec. 67; him services, which, however, prove of Wetter v. Habbersham, 60 Ga. 194; no benefit to him, he cannot recover of Bunn v. Postel, 107 Ga. 490, 33 S. the lunatic therefor, even though he in B. 707; Orr v. Equitable Mortg. good faith supposed him to be sane, Co., 107 Ga. 499, 33 S. E. 708; provided the circumstances known to Emery v. Hoyt, 46 111. 258; Bur- him in regard to the other's mental gess V. Pollock, 53 Iowa, 273, 36 Am. condition were such as to convince a Rep. 218; Mead v. Stegall, 77 111. App. reasonable and prudent man of his in- 679; Hovey v. Holson, 55 Me. 256; sanity, or even to put him on an in- § 23. CoNTEACTs OF Insane Peesons. 57 where a person in good faith contracts with another, without notice of any such insanity as affects his capacity to contract, the ordi- nary presumption of sanity prevails, and the contract is valid, unless it appears that the consideration is grossly inadequate and unfair to the lunatic.^ This rule does not apply to contracts with a person who has been declared judicially to be of unsound mind and for whom a oomnaittee has been appointed to care for his in- terests; such contracts are invalid and cannot be enforced if dis- affirmed or avoided.®^ And conversely it has been frequently declared that if the insanity of a uarty to a contract is known, the contract is absolutely void.^ c. Contracts for necessaries. — Where a contract of an insane person was for necessaries supplied to him or his family, in good faith and suitable to their condition in life, it is valid and bind- ing.** The fact that a person dealing with the insane person had quiry by which he might, if reasonably lunacy or drunkenness, is not capable prudent, have learned that fact. Lin- of understanding its terms or forming coin V. Buckmaster, 32 Vt. 652. See a rational judgment of its effects on also Rhoades v. Fuller, 139 Mo. 179, his interests, is not void, but only 40 S. W. 760. voidable at his option; and this only 96. Leake's Law of Contracts (3d if his state is known to the other ed.), p. 501. party." General rule. — The general rule Bestoration of consideration. — ^If the that controls all cases of this kind is, contract be fair and iona fide, and that the contract of a lunatic made there is no element of fraud or im- before office found will not be set aside position in it, and if the other party where it is entered into in good faith does not know of the insanity, and the by the other party, without fraud or parties cannot be placed in the posi- imposition, for a valuable eonsidera- tion they occupied before the contract tion, without notice of the infirmity, was executed by the same party, there and has been so far executed that the is no reason why the lunatic should be parties cannot be restored to their allowed to retain what he has ac- original position, or there has been res- quired under the contract, and at the toration, or ofifer to restore, or a re- same time be permitted to escape from fusal to restore. Note to 71 Am. St. all liability arising out of it. Plach Rep. 428, citing More v. Calkins, 85 v. Gottschalk Co., 88 Md. 368, 41 Atl. Cal. 177, 24 Pae. 729; Strodder v. So. 908, 71 Am. St. Rep. 418. See also Granite Co., 99 Ga. 595, 27 S. E. 174; Morris v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 67 Ronan v. Bluhm, 173 111. 277, 50 N. E. Minn. 74, 69 N. W. 628. 694; McCormick v. Littler, 85 111. 62, 97. Hughes v. Jones, 116 N. Y. 67, 28 Am. Rep. 610; Abbott v. Creal, 56 22 N. E. 446, 15 Am. St. Rep. 386; Iowa, 175, 9 N. W. 115; Alexander v. Rannels v. Gerner, 80 Mo. 474; Lamor- Haskins, 68 Iowa, 73, 25 N. W. 935; eaux v. Crosby, 2 Paige (N. Y.), Harrison v. Otley, 101 Iowa, 652, 70 N. 422, 22 Am. Dec. 655 ; Fitzhugh v. W. 724; Youngs v. Stephens, 48 N. H. Wilcox, 12 Barb. (N. Y.) 235; Wads- 133, 97 Am. Dec. 592; Bank v. Sneed, worth v. Sharpstein, 8 N. Y. 388, 59 97 Tenn. 120, 36 S. W. 716, 56 Am. St. Am. Dee. 499. But see Hosier v. Rep. 788. See also Knight v. Knight Beard, 54 Ohio St. 398, 43 N. E. 1040, (Ala.), 21 South. 407. 56 Am. St. Rep. 720, 35 L. R. A. 161. Pollock, in his work on Contracts (p. 98. Helberg v. Schuman, 150 111. 12, 89), says: "The rule is now settled, 37 N. E. 99, 41 Am. St. Rep. 339; however, that the contract of a luna- Fecel v. Guinault, 32 La. Ann. 91. tic or drunken man, who, by reason of 99. Fitzgerald v. Reed, 17 Miss. 94; 58 Pabties and theie Capacity. § 23. knowledge of his mental unsoundness, will not of itself vitiate a contract for necessaries, where it appears that they are furnished in good faith.^ It is now well established that the executed con- tract of a non compos mentis for necessaries bona fide supplied stands on the footing of an infant's contract for necessaries.^ But where a contract, even for necessaries, is unexecuted, it can- not he enforced because it wants the essential properties of a legal contract.* d. Bills and notes hy persons of unsound mind. — A person of unsound mind, being incapable of contracting, or of doing any other valid and binding act, will be allowed to plead his disability in an action brought against him upon a promissory note.* Text- writers have frequently declared that no matter though the trans- action be free from all imputation of unfairness, an insane person cannot bind himself or his estate by a promissory note or bill of exchange.'' Thus, an insane man cannot make a valid pledge of a promissory note, even when the pledgee is ignorant of his in- firmity, and practices no sort of management in obtaining the security.* It has been frequently held that a note given for neces- saries by an insane person is invalid, although in such a case the person who furnished the necessaries may recover therefor from the estate of the insane person.^ This is not by any means a Richardson v. Strong, 35 N. C. 106, 5o 161. In the ease of McKee v. Ward, Am. Dec. 430; Stannard v. Bum's 18 Ky. L. Rep. 987, 38 S. W. 704, it Admr., 63 Vt. 244, 22 Atl. 460; Man- was held that a note given by an in- ghan V. Burn's Estate, 64 Vt. 316, 23 sane person for services performed by Atl. 583. See Reando v. Misplay, 90 an attorney in a proceeding for the ap- Mo. 251, 2 S. W. 405, 59 Am. Rep. pointment of a committee is not en- 13. The law implies a contract by an forceable as a contract, insane person to pay for necessaries 6. Seaver v. Phelps, 1 1 Pick. (Mass.) furnished him in good faith. Sceva v. 304; Van Patten v. Beals, 46 Iowa, 62. True, 33 N. H. 627 ; Borum v. Bell 7. Davis v. Tarver, 65 Ala. 98. In (Ala.), 31 South. 454. this case the court said: "The note 1. Buswell on Insanity, § 279. may have been invalid, because of the J2. La Rue v. Gilkyson, 4 Pa. St. incapacity of the intestate to contract 375. at the time of its execution; yet, if 3. Edwards on Bills and Promissory its consideration was necessaries fur- Notes, p. 63. nished the intestate, a, legal liability 4. Mitchell v. Kingman, 5 Pick, would rest on him to pay for them, (Mass.) 431. which would be a debt chargeable to 5. Edwards on Bills and Promis- his estate." Citing Eco p. Northington, Bory Notes, p. 63. See also Taylor v. 37 Ala. 496; Westmoreland v. Davis, Dudley, 35 Ky. 308; Schmidt v. Itt- 1 Ala. 299; Harris v. Davis, 1 Ala. man, 46 La. Ann. 888, 15 So. 310. The 259. And in the case of Milligan v. mental incapacity of the maker of a Pollard, 112 Ala. 465, 20 South. 620, it note is, prima faoie, a complete de- was held that a note in the hands of fense to an action on the note. Hosier the payee, executed by an insane per- v. Beard, 54 Ohio St. 398, 43 N. E. son, though given for necessaries, and 1040, 56 Am. St. Rep. 720, 35 L. R. A. without the payee's being aware of his § 23. Indoesemektt by Insane Peeson. 69 universal rule. Many cases may be cited upholding a contrary doctrine.* Indeed at the present time the doctrine supported by the weight of authority would seem to be that the note or other contract of an insane person is valid and binding when the note was obtained or the contract entered into in good faith, in ignor- ance of the want of capacity of the insane person to contract, and for a full and adequate consideration of money paid, or property delivered to him.* e. Indorsement by insane person; rights of innocent holder. — For the same reason and in recognition of the same rule as in the case of the making of a promissory note by an insane person, an insanity, is not binding on his estate, he was found to be a lunatic, and to See also MeKee v. Purnell, 18 Ky. L. have been a lunatic from a time an- Eep. 879. terior to the making of the note. The 8. Note for necessaries held valid, plaintiff had no notice of defendant's — A person who had been adjudged in- lunacy. It was held that the defend- sane, but over whom no conservator ant's insanity was not a defense to aU had been appointed, and who contin- action on the liote. But under a Geor- ued in the management of his busi- gia statute (Civ. Code, § 3652), which ness, v/ith -nothing in his appearance provides that an insane person cannot to indicate his mental unsoundness, contract, it was held that a banlc was purchased goods necessary and useful jjable in paying a cheek of a person in his business, at a reasonable price, ^j^ had been judicially declared to and executed his note therefor The ^^ insane, in another State, and which seller had no knowledge of his having f^^^ ^^^ unknown to the bank. Ameri- been adjudged insane or of his being ^^^ ^^^^^ & Banking Co. v. Boone, 102 a lunatic. It was held that the pur- (.^ 202, 29 S. B. 182, 40 L. R. A. 250. chaser was liable on the note, and statement of rule The general that payment of a judgment recovered ^^j^ ^^ ^^^^ contract; with lunatics therefor would not be enjoined. Mc- , . •„ „,., . Cormick v. Littler, 85 111. 62, 28 Am. ^"^ /"^^J''^ Vf.f^^. are invalid, sub- Eep. 610. See also Allen v. BerryhiU, J«'=* *°.*''" 1^/ -^t Hl^ l V»^t w 27 Iowa, 534, in which the court says: '"^'^^^ 8°°.^ f^'*?^ with a lunatic for "Justice and sound policy concur in ^ full consideration which has been requiring this court to hold, as it does, executed without knowledge of the in- that whire a contract has been entered f ^-I'ty. "'^ f'^f information as would into (under circumstances which would 1?^^ ^ prudent person to the belief of ordinarily make it binding) by a sane i^^,,'?'^^?^'''*^'^ Z^^l ^^„T i t" man with one who is insane, and Matthiesen v. McMahon, 38 N. J. L that contract has been adopted, and is 536 See also Yanger v. bkinner, 14 sought to be enforced by the represen- N. J. Eq. 389; Youngs v. Stevens, 48 tatives of the latter, it is no defense ^- H. 133. to the sane party to show that the As a general rule, the promissory other party was non compos mentis at note of a person non compos mentis the time the contract was made." is invalid; but the rule is subject to 9. Notice of insanity.— In the case the qualification that, when such » of Lancaster County Bank v. Moore, note is given for necessaries or for 78 Pa. St. 407, 21 Am. Rep. 24, it ap- other adequate consideration of benefit, peared that the defendant, desiring to furnished to the maker in good faith, borrow money, gave S. his note, which without knowledge of his unsound S. procured to be discounted at plain- mental condition, it may be enforced tiff's bank, and the money deposited to the extent of the value of the con- to the defendant's order. Afterward sideration so furnished. Hosier v. a petition de lunatioo inquirendo was Beard, 54 Ohio St. 398, 43 N. B. 1040, presented against the defendant, and 56 Am. St. Eep. 720, 35 L. E. A. 161. 60 Parties and theie Capacity. 23. indorsement thereof by such a person is invalid and does not con- vey a legal title to the note. The principle applicable to com- mercial paper, that when in the hands of a bona fide holder for value, the consideration cannot be inquired into, does not apply to cases of commercial paper made by insane persons.*" An in- dorsement of a promissory note by the payee is a contract which an insane person cannot make, because he lacks the power to give that consent which the contract requires.** It has been held, there- fore, that the insanity of the indorser may be pleaded by the maker of a note in an action brought against him by the indorsee.** But the doctrine has also been declared that the contract of indorse- ment by an insane person is voidable and not void, and such con- tract is binding upon all prior parties to the instrument who are of sound mind until it is avoided by the insane person or his guardian or legal representatives.** No action will lie on an ac- 10. Moore v. Herscliey, 90 Pa. St. 196 ; Hosier v. Beard, 54 Ohio St. 398, 42 N. E. 1040, 56 Am. St. Eep. 720, 35 L. R. A. 161. 11. Burke v. Allen, 29 N. H. 106, 61 Am. Dec. 642. 12. Defense of insanity of indorser. — The leading case in favor of the BufBeie'ncy of such a defense is Burke V. Allen, 29 N. H. 106, 61 Am. Dec. 642, in which the court says: "An insane person understands not the ef- fect of indorsing the tiote, nor whether he is receiving a valuable considera- tion for the same or not. He may not even know that he is parting with his property; and an indorsee who should take a Bote under such circumstances would be guilty of fraud. If at the time the note is given the payee should be insane, and the maker should be aware of the fact, he would be bound in equity and good conscience not to pay it to an indorsee till he had ascer- tained that he was the rightful and legal holder. Or if when it is given he should not be aware of the exist- ence of the insanity, or if after it should be given the payee should be- come insane, the reason is equally strong why he should not pay it with- out due inquiry, if he had notice of the insanity. And if, under such circum- stances, he ought not to be protected in paying the note to the indorsee, then it would seem to follow as a legiti- mate consequence that he should be permitted to show the existence of in- sanity at the time of the indorsement, in defense of an action brought by the indorsee. * * » And it appears to us that the due protection of the rights of an insane person requires that this defense should be permitted; for, un- less it is, then payment to an indorsee must be good, and a judgm^t in his favor upon the note must be a valid bar to any suit upon the same by the insane person or his representatives. * * " So if the maker cannot show insanity in the indorser at the time of the transfer, in defense of a suit by the indorsee, then insanity cannot be shown by the indorser or his represen- tatives as a reason why the note should be paid to him instead of the indorsee, and the act of indorsement would be made legal, and the non com- pos would be unprotected from the effects of his indorsement." See also Hannahs v. Sheldon, 20 Mich. 278, where it was held that evidence that the payee of a negotiable instrument, payable to order, was insane during all the time from the issuing of the paper until the death of the payee, is ad- missible to disprove the validity of the transfer. See also Jeneson v. Jeneson, 66 111. 259. 13. Carrier v. Sears, 4 Allen (Mass.), 336, 81 Am. Dec. 707, which was an action by an indorsee of a promissory note against the maker, and it was held that it was no defense to prove that the plaintiff procured the in- dorsement by undue influence from the payee, when he was of unsound mind and incapable of making a valid in- § 24. Intoxicated Peesons. 61 oommodation indorsement of a promissory note by a lunatic, even in favor of an innocent holder.-'* § 34. Intoxicated persons. a. Contracts generally. — A person wlio has deprived himself of reason by intoxication is in a condition, as regards the capacity of contracting, analogous to that of mental insanity, and the same rules may in general be applied ; he is " non compos mentis by his own act." ^^ If a person enter into an agreement vsdth another, knowing him to be then so far intoxicated as to be incapable of understanding the matter of the agreement, the contract is void- able by the party so incapacitated.-*^® It must appear, however, in order to avoid a contract on the ground of intoxication, that it is such as deprives the party of his reason and understanding, or is brought about by the party seeking to take advantage of such in- toxication, and for the purpose of so doing. '^'^ Where a person has been judicially declared an habitual drunkard he cannot enter into a contract which will bind his estate,^* except for necessaries.^* b. Promissory notes and hills of exchange. — A note or bill made or drawn by a person while so intoxicated as to be deprived of his understanding cannot be enforced as against him by the payee. ^^ dorsement, if the payee or his legal 377; English v. Young, 49 Ky. 141; representatives have never disaffirmed Broadwater v. Darne, 10 Mo. 277; it; or that the payee, for a valuable Prentice v. Achorn, 2 Paige (N. Y.), consideration, had agreed to give up 30; Hyman v. Moore, 48 N. C. 416; the note at his death to the m^er, re- Bush v. Breining, 113 Pa. St. 310, 6 serving meanwhile the right to collect Atl. 86^ 57 Am. Dec. 469. the interest thereon. 17. Wilcox v. Jackson, 51 Iowa, 208, It is a general rule that the contract 1 N. W. 513; Jones v. Pritchy, 39 Md. of an insane person is voidable only 258; Curtis v. Hall, 4 N. J. L. 412; at the election of the insane person. Burroughs v. Richman, 13 N. J. L. Atwell V. Jenkins, 163 Mass. 362, 40 233, 23 Am. Dec. 717; Birdsong v. N. E. 178, 28 L. R. A. 694; Allen v. Birdsong, 39 Terni. 289. A drunkard Berryhill, 27 Iowa, 534, 1 Am. Kep. is incompetent to contract only on 309; Warfield v. Warfield, 76 Iowa, proof that, at the time of making 633, 41 N. W. 383 ; Arnous v. Lesassier, the contract, his understanding was 10 La. 592, 29 Am. Dec. 470; Ingra- clouded, or reason dethroned, by actual ham v. Baldwin. 9 N. Y. 45. intoxication. Wright v. Fisher, 65 14. Wirebach v. Easton Bank, 97 Mich. 275, 32 N. W. 605; Reynolds v. Pa. St. 543, 39 Am. Rep. 821. Dechaums, 24 Tex. 174. 15. 4 Coke's Litt. 1246; Leake's 18. Devin v. Scott, 34 Ind. 67; Law of Contracts (3d ed.), p. 505. L'Amoureux v. Crosby, 2 Paige (N. Y.), 16. Gore v. Gibson, 13 Mees. & W. 422, 22 Am. Dec. 655; ImhofiF v. Wit- (Eng.) 623; Butler v. Mulvihill, 1 mer's Admr., 31 Pa. St. 243. Bligh (Eng.), 137; Pitt v. Smith, 19. Darby v. Cabanne, 1 Mo. App. 3 Campb. (Eng.) 33; Hamilton v. 126; Brockway v. Jewell, 52 Ohio St. Grainger, 5 H. & N. (Eng.) 40; Bowen 187, 39 N. E. 470. V. Clark, Fed. Cas. No. 1,721; Cum- 20. Taylor v. Purcell, 60 Ark. 606; mings V. Henry, 10 Ind. 109; Joest v. Reinskopf v. Eogge, 37 Ind. 207; New- Williams, 42 Ind. 565, 13 Am. Rep. ell v. Fisher, 19 Miss. 431, 49 Am. 62 Parties and theie Capacity. § 25. Partial intoxication would not be sufficient as a defense.^ To render the instrument invalid it must appear that at the time of its signature the party was so drunk as to have drowned reason, memory, and judgment, and impaired his mental faculties to an extent that would render him non compos mentis for the time being. This is so especially when the other parties connected with the transaction have not aided in, or procured his drunkenness.^^ There are some authorities to the effect that a note signed by the maker while in a state of intoxication cannot be avoided when in the hands of a bona fide purchaser before maturity.^* An. indorse- ment made by a person while so intoxicated as not to realize the result of his acts will not bind him, in favor of the indorsee who had knowledge of such intoxication.^* S 25. Married women. a. Under the common law. — Under the common law a married woman is incapable of entering into a contract of any nature ; for during her marriage, her very being, or legal existence, as a dis- tinct person, is suspended, or, at least, is incorporated and con- solidated with that of her husband. ^^ It follows, therefore, inde- pendent of any statute, that the promissory notes, bills of ex- change, or other commercial paper executed by a married woman are, at common law, absolutely void.^ There are, however, certain exceptions to this rule: (1) Where the husband is legally dead, or where he has been absent and not heard from for seven years, Dee. 66 ; MeClure V. Mansell, 4 Brewst. (Eng.) 623, where the defendant (Pa.) 119. pleaded, in an action by an indorsee 21. Where the maker of a promis- against the indorser of a bill of ex- sory note was not so intoxicated at the change, that when he indorsed the bill time he made the note but that he he was so intoxicated and thereby so remembered the act and accompanying deprived of sense, understanding, and circumstances the next morning, held the use of his reason^ as to be unable that he could not set up as a defense, to comprehend the meaning, nature, or in an action on the note by a hona eflfect of the indorsement, or to contract fide holder, the plea of intoxication, thereby; of which the plaintiff, at the Caulkins v. Fry, 35 Coton. 170; Miller time of the indorsement, had notice. V. Finlay, 26 Mich. 249. Held to be a good answer to the ac Z2. Bates v. Ball, 72 111. 108. tion. 23. Smith v. Williamson, 8 Utah, 25. Story on Promissory Notes ( 5th 219, 30 Pac. 753. On the grounds of ed.), § 85; 1 Bl. Comm. 442; Bayley public policy and the necessities of on Bills, chap. 2, § 3. commerce, the defense of drunkenness 26. Vance v. Wells, 6 Ala. 737; in the maker cannot be set up against Mudge v. Bullock, 83 ill. 22; Howe v. the innocent holder of a negotiable Wildes, 34 Me. 566 ; Waterbury v. An- note. State Bank vl McCoy, 69 Pa. St. drews, 67 Mich. 281, 34 N. W. 575; 204, 8 Am. Rep. 246; McSparran v. Bauer v. Bauer, 40 Mo. 61; Shannon Neeley, 91 Pa. St. 17. v. Canney, 44 N. H. 592; Wilson v. 24. Gore v. Gibson, 13 Mees. & W. Cheshire, 1 McCord Eq. (S. C.) 239. § 25. Maeeied Women. 63 so that the law presumes him to be dead, the wife may make con- tracts that will bind her at law.^^ And in many States in this country this exception is carried still further, and it is held that where the husband was never in the State, or has left it and wholly renoimced his marital rights and duties, and deserted his wife, she may make contracts and sue and be sued in her own name as feme sole.^ (2) If a married woman have a separate estate and 27. Edwards on Bills of Exchange as a feme sole. James v. Stewart, 9 and Promissoiy Notes, p. 68. Ala. 855; Mead v. Hughes, 15 Ala. Civiliter mortuus.— The wife of a 141; Krebs v. O'Grady, 23 Ala. 726; man civiliter mortuus, or banished, or Clark v. Valentine, 41 Ga. 143; Love convicted of a crime and sentenced for v. Moynehan, 16 111. 277 ; Prescott v. life, may contract, sue, and be sued Fisher, 22 111. 390; Burger v. Belsley, as a feme sole. 2 Kent's Comm. 154; 45 111. 74; City of Peru v. French, 55 Robinson v. Reynolds, ! Aikens 111. 317; Anderson v. Jacobson, 66 111. (Vt.), 174, 15 Am. Dec. 673; Krebs 522; Smith v. Silence, 4 Iowa, 321; V. O'Grady, 23 Ala. 726, 58 Am. Gregory v. Pierce, 4 Mete. (Mass.) Dec. 312; Young v. PoUak, 85 Ala. 478; Benadum v. Pratt, 1 Ohio St. 439, 5 South. 279. So the wife 403; Bean v. McCord, 4 MeCord of a convict sentenced to transporta- (S. C), 148. It must, however, con- tion for a term of years may enter into elusively appear that the desertion is a contract, even after the expiration of complete and absolute, amounting to his term, if he continues beyond seas, an entire renunciation by the husband for this is to be deemed an abjura- of his marital rights and relations, tion of the realm. Carroll v. Blenco, Ayer v. Warren, 47 Me. 217 ; Smith v. 4 Esp. (Eng.) 27. And it has been Silence, 4 Iowa, 321; Gregory v. held that the wife of a convict sen- Pierce, 4 Mete. (Mass.) 478. In the tenced to transportation, but remain- latter case the court said (Shaw, ing on prison hulks within the realm, C. J. ) : " The principle is now to be may be declared a bankrupt where she considered as established in this State, carries on business as a feme sole, as a necessary exception to the rule Ew p. Franks, 7 Bing. (Eng.) 762. of the common law, placing a married As to absence from State and no knowl- woman under disability to contract or Bdge of husband's existence for seven maintain a. suit, that where the hus- years, see King v. Paddock, 18 Johns, band was never within the Common- (N. Y.) 141. wealth, or has gone beyond its juris- 28. Desertion. — It was formerly diction, has wholly renounced his mari- held in England and in some of the tal rights, and deserted his wife, she American States that a wife of a citi- may make and take contracts, and zen who has deserted her and left sue and be sued in her own name as the country without having abjured a feme sole. * * * But to accom- the realm, or who remains out of the plish this change in the civil relations country for the purpose of looking of the wife, the desertion by the hus- after certain property interests, can- band must be absolute and complete; not sue or be sued as a feme sole, it must be a voluntary separation from Bogget V. Frier, 11 East (Eng.), and abandonment of the wife, embrac- 301 ; Walford v. De Pienne, 2 ing both the fact and intent of the Esp. (Eng.) 554; Marsh v. Hunting- husband to renounce de facto, and so ton, 2 Bos. & P. ( Eng. ) 226 ; Boyce far as he can do it, the marital rela- V. Owens, 1 Hill (S. C), 8; Rogers v. tion, and leave his wife to act as a Phillips, 8 Ark. 336. But the law feme sole. Such is the renunciation, seems well settled in most of the coupled with a continued absence in a States where the question has arisen, foreign State or country, which is held that where a husband has deserted his to operate like an abjuration of the wife, or driven her from home by abuse, realm." and permanently left the State, his In some States it has been held that wife may contract, sue, and be sued a departure from the State by the de- 64 Paeties awd theie Capacity. §25. make a promissory note, or accept a bill of exchange, she is liable.^ (3) Where a married woman has been divorced a vinculo matri- monii she may bind herself as a /erne sole, because such a divorce annuls the marriage to all intents and purposes and consequently removes her disability.®"- But it is generally held that a limited divorce, or a divorce a mensa et thoro will not have such an effect f^ and when the wife is living apart from her husband under articles of agreement, providing for a separate maintenance, the common- law disability continues,®^ unless it appears that the husband has left the State to permanently reside elsewhere.®* . setting husband is Hot necessary to re- move the disability of the wife. In the case of Love v. Moynehan, 16 111. 277, Justice Skinner says : " We hold the law to be, that where the husband com- pels the wife to live separate from him, either by abandoning her, or forc- ing her, by whatever means, to leave him, and such separation is not merely temporary and capricious, but perma- nent, and without expectation of again living together, and the wife is un- provided for by the husband, in such manner as is suited to their circum- stances and condition in life, she may acquire property, control her person and acquisitions, and contract, sue, and be sued in relation to them, as a feme sole, during the continuance of such condition." Husband's insanity. — Where hus- band is insane and confined in an asylum without the State, the wife may contract. Gustin v. Carpenter, 51 Vt. 585; Harris v.' Bohle, 19 Mo. App. 529. 29. England. — BuUpin v. Clarke, 17 Ves. 566; Hulme v. Tenant, 1 Bro. C. C. 16; Stewart v. Kirkwall, 3 Madd. 387; Johnson v. Gallagher, 30 L. J. Ch. 298 ; McHenry v. Davies, L. E., 10 Eq. 88; Davies v. Jenkins, L. E., 6 Ch. Div. 728. Alabama. — Collins v. Rudolph, 19 Ala. 616; McMillan v. Peacock, 57 Ala. 127 ; Helmetag v. Frank, 61 Ala. 67. Connecticut. — Imlay v. Huntington, 20 Conn. 146 ; Hitchcock v. Kieley, 41 .Conn. 611; Williams v. King, 43 Conn. 569. Florida. — Maiben v. Bobe, 6 Pla. 381. Georgia. — Wylly v. Collins, 9 Ga. 223; Dallas v. Heard, 32 Ga. 604; Saulsbury v. Weaver, 59 Ga. 254. ZJfiwois.— Swift V. Castle, 23 111. 209; Conkling v. Doul, 67 111. 355. Kansas. — Deering v. Boyle, 8 Kan. 525; Wicks v. Mitchell, 9 Kan. 80. Maryland. — Cooke v. Husbands, 11 Md. 492; Koontz v. Nabb, 16 Md. 549; Wilson v. Jones, 46 Md. 349. Missouri. — Coats v. Robinson, 10 Mo. 757 ; Whitesides v. Cannon, 23 Mo. 457; Schafroth v. Amos, 46 Mo. 114; Kinnon v. Weippert, 46 Mo. 532, 2 Am. Rep. 541; Miller v. Brown, 47 Mo. 504, 4 Am. Rep. 345; Metropoli- tan Bank v. Taylor, 62 Mo. 338. New Jersey. — Leaycraft v. Hedden, 18 N. J. Eq. 512. New York. — Yale v. Dederer, 18 N. Y. 265, 22 N. Y. 450, 68 N. Y. 329; Manhattan Brass Co. v. Thompson, 58 N. Y. 80; Gosman v. Cruger, 69 N. Y. 87; Eisenlord v. Snyder, 71 N. Y. 45. Ohio. — Maclin v. Burroughs, 14 Ohio St. 519; Phillips v. Graves, 20 Ohio St. 371, 5 Am. Rep. 675; Wil- liams V. Urmston, 35 Ohio St. 296. 30. Byles on Bills (16th ed.), p. 73; Story on Promissory Notes, § 85. Parsons on Notes and Bills, p. 78; Chase v. Chase, 6 Gray (Mass.), 159; Piper V. May, 51 Ind. 283. 31. Lewis V. Lee, 3 B. & C. (Eng.) 291; s. c, 5 D. & R. (Eng.) 90. But see Dean v. Richmond, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 461, where it was held that a wife divorced o mensa et thoro, and living apart from her husband could sue and be sued as a feme sole. See also Pierce V. Burnham, 4 Mete. (Mass.) 303. 32. Marshall v. Rutton, 8 T. R. (Eng.) 845; Lord St. John v. Lady St. John, 11 Ves. (Eng.) 526; Par- ker's Exr. V. Lambeil's Exr., 31 Ala. 89; Fuller v. Bartlett, 41 111. 241; Harris v. Taylor, 3 Sneed (Tenn.), 536. 33. Rose V. Bates, 12 Mo. 30. §25. Maehied Womebt. 65 b. Enabling statutes. — In many of the States of the Union, and also in England many statutes have been enacted entirely removing or greatly modifying the disability to contract imposed upon mar- ried women by the common law. Indeed in recent years there has been a rapidly growing tendency in legislation to abrogate the common-law rules restricting and limiting the rights and liabili- ties of married women, and to place them in respect thereto in the same condition as unmarried women.^* It is not the purpose of this work to dwell at length upon the difficult questions involved in the consideration of the effect of the statutes of the several States upon the prior existing common-law rules. Married women are still subject to common-law rules in those States where the common law has been unchanged by statute ; if a special or limited power to contract is given them, they are still deemed prima facie unable to contract, and the burden is on the persons relying on the validity of their contracts to bring them within the statutory rule;^" and where State statutes have abrogated all disabilities, the contracts of married women are no longer subject to special rules, and they have hence become subject in all respects to the same law as other persons.'"' The laws of the several States differ 84. Canal Bank v. Partee, 99 U. S. 331, 25 L. Ed. 390. 35. Troy Fertilizer Co. v. Zaohry, 114 Ala. 177, 21 South. 471; Way v. Peck, 47 Conn. 23; Rodemeyer v. Eodman, 5 Iowa, 426; Weat v. Lara- way, 28 Mich. 464; Lewis v. Perkins, 36 N. J. L. 133. English Married Women's Property Act (33 & 34 Vict., chap. 93) permit- ted married women to keep for their own use their wages and earnings gained independently of their husbands and to sue and be sued upon their con- tracts in respect to their separate es- tates. The act of 45 & 46 Vict., chap. 75, repealed the former act and pro- vides that a married woman can ac- quire, hold, aftd dispose of property, real or personal, including choses in action, without the intervention of a trustee; and she may sue and be sued, both in contract and tort, to the ex- tent of her separate property, whether held at the time or subsequently ac- quired, just like a feme sole. All her contracts prima facie relate to and bind her separate property, subject to any restraint on anticipation, and if trading separately she may be made bankrupt. The English cases under 5 these acts are very numerous. The general result of all of them seems to be " that a married woman having a separate estate enjoys an independent legal existence so far as as it is con- cerned, but those dealing with her should take care to see that she pos- sesses it at the time, and is contract- ing in respect to it, and not as agent for her husband. Her acceptance prima fa^ie binds her and not her hus- band, and in ease of an instrument payable to her, she alone can indorse, or receive the money or give a valid discharge." Byles on Bills (16th ed.), p. 78. The laws of many of the States fol- low closely the English acts above re- ferred to, and the remarks of Mr. Byles appended thereto are equally ap- plicable to such States. Those who deal with a married woman are bound to inquire as to whether a contract, or the considera- tion thereof, is for her benefit, or the benefit of her estate, and therefore one which, under the statute, she may law- fully make. Cupp v. Campbell, 103 Ind. 213, 2 N. E. 565. 35a. The liability of a married woman on a contract made within the 66 Paeties and theie Capacity. § 25. materially in their mjethods of treating the disabilities of married women. To determine what these disabilities are it will be neces- sary to consult the statutes of such States and the cases arising thereunder. There will only be space in this work for a considera- tion of a few of the more important common-law rules which are generally applicable in all jurisdictions to the rights and liabili- ties of married women in respect to commercial paper, unless modified by statute. c. Bills and notes of married women generally. — Under the common law negotiable instruments executed by a married woman are absolutely void,*' subject of course to the exceptions noted above. If such an instrument be executed by a married woman In respect to her separate estate it is in most jurisdictions a valid and binding obligation payable out of such estate.*^ This ex- ception is founded in equity. The cases upon which it was based were those where the liability to pay was dependent upon con- siderations that did not recognize the married women's legal ob- ligations as arising out of their contracts, but rather upon the fact that credit was given or the debts contracted on the faith of their separate estates and to be paid out of them.** Where the wife had no separate estate or business, a note signed by her, given for sup- scope of her statutory capacity is to South Oarolma. — Wilson v. Ches- be determined by the same rules as hire, 1 MeCord Eq. 233; Goodhue v. those applied to persons of full oa- Barnwell, Rice Eq. 198; Howard v. pacity. McKell v. Merchants' Nat. Kitchens, 31 S. C. 490, 10 S. E. Bank, 62 Neb. 608, 87 N. W. 317. 224. 36. Alabama. — Vance v. Wells, 6 Temiessee. — Yeatman v. Bellmain, 1 Ala. 737. Tenn. Ch. 589; Snodgrass v. Hyder, daUfornia.— Butler v. Baber. 54 95 Tenn. 568, 32 S. W. 764. Cal. 178. Wisconsin. — O'Malley v. Ruddy, 79 Florida.— Bollner v. Snow, 16 Fla. Wis. 147, 48 N. W. 116. 8g_ As to validity of notes given or in- Indicma.— Higgins v. Willis, 35 Ind. dorsed by a married woman to her 371; Brick V. Scott, 47 Ind. 299. husband under a statute prohibiting Kentucky.— Stevetis v. Deering, 9 contracts between husband and wife, S W 292 ^^® National Granite Bank v. Tyn- ■jfisso«ri.- Bauer v. Bauer, 40 Mo. dale, 176 Mass. 547 57 N. E. 1022, 51 gj L. R. A. 447; First Nat. Bank v. Al- ye&msfca.- State Sav. Bank of St. bertson (N. J. Ch.), 47 Atl. 818 Joseph v. Scott, 10 Neb. 83, 4 N. W. ^^-.fT'^^^^^rno'l^s.'tl] *'^*: „ ,. „, _, Nelson v. Miller, 52 Mass. 410; New Hompsfctre.- Shannon v. Can- Harris v. Gates, 121 Mich. 163, 79 ney, 44 N. H. 592. „ „ N. W. 1098; State Savings Bank of J\^eu) Yorfc.— Vansteenburghv. Hofl- gt, jggepj, y_ g^ott, 10 Neb. 83, 4 man, 15 Barb. 28; Bogert v. Gulick, n. w. 314; Shannon v. Canney, 44 65 Barb. 322; Lenderman v. Farquar- N. H. 592. son, 101 N. Y. 434, 5 N. B. 67. 38. Edwards on Bills and Notes, p. North GaroUna. — Wilcox v. Arnold, 69 ; Darwin v. ]Woore, 58 S. C. 164, 116 N. C. 708, 21 S. E. 434. 36 S. E. 539. .§25. Mabeied Womeit. plies for the support of tlie family, is the debt of the husband alone, he being bound to furnish such supplies.^* d. Indorsement by married woman. — At common law, where a promissory note is made to a feme sole, and she afterward mar- ries, being possessed of the note, the title vests in the husband, and he alone can indorse it for transfer.*** And where a note is made payable to a married woman, the legal interest in it vests in the husband.** Such negotiable paper, being part of her personal estate, payable to her order, is in legal effect, under the common law, payable to her husband.*^ The husband may authorize his wife to indorse bills of exchange and promissory notes ; and where he permits her to carry on business and pass under an assumed name, such an authority may be presumed.** If he permits her to carry on business in her own name, and she indorses a note payable to her in the course of her business, using the name of her husband, it seems the circumstances may be left to the jury to 39. O'Malley v. Ruddy, 79 Wis. 147, 48 N. W. 116. 40. Parsons on Notes and Bills, p. 85 ; Conner v. Martin, 1 Stra. (Eng.) 516, 3 Wils. 5. Byles on Bills (16th ed., p. 75), says : " Formerly, where a bill or note was given to a single woman, and she mar- ried, the property vested in her hus- band, and he alone could indorse it; and husband and wife must join in the action upon it ; but if payable to order, marriage might operate as an indorse- ment, so as to enable the husband to sue alone. If not recovered upon or reduced into possession during their joint lives, it reverted to the woman, if she survived, or went to her hus- band as her administrator, if he sur- vived." 41. Barlow v. Bishop, 1 East (Eng.), 432; Roland v. Logan, 18 Ala. 307; Krebs v. O'Grady, 23 Ala. 726, 58 Am. Dec. 312; Mudge v. Bullock, 83 111. 22; Savage v. King, 17 Me. 301; Hancock Bank v. Joy, 41 Me. 668; Stevens v. Beals, 10 Gush. (Mass.) 291, 57 Am. Dec. 108. In the latter case the court said: " In the leading case of Barlow v. Bishop, 1 East (Eng.), 432, which de- cides that a married woman cannot in- dorse a note made payable to her in her own name, so as to pass a valid title thereto, proof of the authority or assent of the husband was want- ing." See Walton v. Bristol, 125 N. C. 419, 34 S. E. 544. 43. Edwards on Bills and Notes, p. 71. 43. Assent of husband. — It is now a well-settled rule of law that the assent or authority of the husband gives validity to the wife's indorse- ment and enables her to pass a good title to choses in action made payable to her during coverture. The principle upon which this rule rests is this: the coverture of the wife creates an incapacity and disability in her to make a valid contract. The assent of the husband removes this disability or supplies the want of capacity. She then becomes, to a certain extent, the agent of the husband, who is bound by her acts when done in pur- suance of the authority conferred by him. Stevens v. Beals, 10 Gush. (Mass.) 291, 57 Am. Dec. 108, citing Coates V. Davis, 1 Gampb. ( Eng. ) 485 ; Miller v. Delameter, 12 Wend. (N. Y.\ 433. In the case of Allen v. Wilkins, 3 Allen (Mass.), 321, the doctrine that a note made to a married woman dur- ing coverture belongs to her husband is explained to mean that the ius- band has the jus disponendi so long as they both live, but it is held that if the husband dies without reducing the chose to possession, or doing any act indicating an intent to appropriate '68 Paeties and theie Capacity. § 25. presume or infer an authority from him to indorse.** So, where she drew a bill of exchange payable to her own order, and indorsed it with the assent of her husband, it was held that this indorse- ment carried the title to her indorsee, so as to enable him to re- cover thereon against the acceptor.*® But where no authority is shown, her act is a nullity, and her indorsement transfers no prop- erty in the bill or note.*® But it has been held that notes payable to bearer may be passed by delivery by a /erne covert who owned them.*'' The rules here laid down are derived solely from the common law, unaffected by statute. They have been more or less affected by the statutes of the several States and cannot now be said to be in full force and effect. e. Reduction into possession. — A promissory note is not a per- sonal chattel in possession but is a chose in action ; and the com- mon-law rule is that when a chose in action, such as a bond or note, is given to a feme covert^ the husband may elect to let his wife have the benefit of it, or he may take it himself and reduce it into possession at any time during the coverture.*^ It was always a question of considerable nicety to determine what amounted to a reduction of the wife's chose of action into possession.*' If the note was negotiable it could be reduced into possession by indors- ing and transferring it ; if nonnegotiable, it could only be reduced to possession by a suit at law, like any other thing in action. If he omitted to bring such an action, and he survived his wife, the it during the wife's life, her admin- the husband was not a reduction of istrator may sue on it. the wife's choses of action into pos- 44. Barlow v. Bishop, 1 East session; and therefore the assignees (Bng.), 432. As to what will eon- of a bankrupt could not maintain an stitute implied authority, see Euss v. action in their own names alone on a George, 45 N. H. 467; George v. Cut- promissory note made by the wife of ting, 46 N. H. 130, 88 Am. Dec. 195. the bankrupt before her marriage. 45. Prestwick v. Marshall, 5 Car. & (Sherrington v. Yates, 12 Mees. & W. P. (Eng.) 594. [Eng.] 855.) Nor was the receipt of in- 46. Savage v. King, 17 Me. 301 ; terest by the husband a, reduction into Vann v. Edwards, 128 N. C. 425, 39 possession, nor a direction by a hus- S. E. 66. band to his banker to keep it separate 47. Cobb V. Duke, 36 Miss. 60, 72 from other monies, followed by a be- Am. Dec. 157. quest in his will. (Hart v. Stephens, 48. Edwards on Bills and Notes, 6 Q. B. 937; Scrutton v. Pattillo, L. p. 72; Gaters v. Maderly, 6 Mees. & R., 19 Eq. 369; Nicholson v. Drury W. (Eng.) 422; Betts v. Kimpton, Building Co., L. R., 7 Ch. Div. 49.)" 2 Barn. & Adol. (Eng.) 273; Hart v. In the ease of James v. Groff, 157 Mo. Stephens, 14 L. J. Q. B. (Eng.) 148. 402, 57 S. W. 1081, it was held that 49. Byles on Bills (16th ed.), p. 76, the mere indorsement of a note Tjy a in which it is said : " It is conceived wife to her husband does not reduce that Indorsing a note over was such such note to his possession, ao as to .a reduction. But the bankruptcy of convey title thereto to him. § 25. Maeeied Women. 69 action wa8 required to be brought in the name of her personal representatives.®" If no action was taken to reduce into posses- sion, the note survived to the wife after the death of the husbaud.^^ f . Joint notes of husband and wife. — Under the common law a joint and several note made by both husband and wife binds the husband only.''^ But where the note was made by them for the purpose of aiding the vrife in the transaction of her separate busi- ness, the note will be binding upon the wife.®* The same is doubt- less true where such a note is for the sole benefit of the wiife's separate estate.®* The name of the wife being found on a note does not raise a legal presumption that she is either jointly or severally liable on it.'® 50. Edwards on Bills and Notes, p. valid in law, and the amount of such 72; 1 Parsons on Notes and Bills, p. 85. note may be recovered against the hus- 51. Allen v. Wilkins, 3 Allen band and wife in an action of assump- (Mass.), 321; Clark v. Clark, 76 Wis. sit. Barnes v. De France, 2 Colo. 294. 306, 45 N. W. 121. In the case of Schofield v. Jones, 85 Parsons, in his work on Notes and Ga. 816, 11 S. E. 1032, it was held Bills (Vol. 1, p. 85), says : " Bills and that where a wife joins with her hus- notes possessed by a single woman be- band in taking a, lease of property for fore and at her marriage are her choses the purpose of carrying on the hotel in action, which the husband may re- business, their joint notes, executed duce to his possession and so make for the rent, are binding on the wife, his own, or may not. If he does not g^^ ^^^^ ^ ^^ ^ Walton, 114 Ga. and dies, her right and interest to or 375 40 g g-'ggy Thornton v. Lemon, in them are the same as before mar- jj^ ^^ ^ 39 g ^ g j riage. If she dies, they are now as- g j^^ ^^. g ^ ^ ^ sets in the hands of her administrator : ,,„ -ir V /-n 1 ln^ X- a v the husband has a right to be her ad- *f ' w 'i^fi "^^ ministrator; and having in that ca- J^' vi\ ■', «. tt o uri. ^ paeity collected the notes or bills, he „ ^4 Colonial & U S Mtge^ Co v. will retain the proceeds for his own ^""^f^^yf ^ .S" ^- 2,?^' ^^ ?■ ^- HOS. benefit and as his own property. And ,„55. Harris v Pinberg, 46 Tex. 79; if he dies, the right of taking out ^a/ ''■ ^^^' ^7 Conn. 23 In the letters of administrltion upon her un- ^^^^^ =^«« ^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ f^^ where a settled estate goes to his next of kin married woman has signed a note with and not to hers. If she leaves debts l^^r husband, it will not be presumed, contracted when single, for which the ^^^ ^n^st be shown, that the circum- husband is no longer liable as such, stances were such as to bring the case he is still liable as her administrator within the statute making married to the extent of her bills and notes women liable on their contracts, and or other choses in action which he the husband's declarations, made in has reduced to possession after her the absence of the wife and without death, but not for those which he re- her authority, will not bind her, nor duced as husband, while she lived." will the fact that a part of the loan 53. Luning v. Brady, 10 Cal. 265; for which the note was given was de- Brown v. Orr, 29 Cal. 120; Durnford posited by the husband to the wife's V. Gross, 7 Mart. (La.) O. S. 466; credit, and drawn by her in payment Sprigg V. Boissier, 5 Mart. (La.) N. of bills for an addition to her house, S. 54; Davidson V. Stuart, 10 La. 146; though significant as evidence, be Smith V. Wilson (Tex.), 32 S. W. 434. equivalent to a finding of facts creat- 53. A note given by a married ing a statute liability. See also Cren- woman and her husband for property shaw v. Collier, 70 Ark. 5, 65 S. W. purchased by her as a sole trader is 709. '70 Paeties and theie Capacity. § 26. i 26. Alien enemies. A state of war operates to suspend and interdict all intercourse and correspondence with the enemy ; it prohibits all commerce, and contracts between the citizens and subjects of the belligerent nations are unlawful and void.^* The reason for this rule is found in the fact that every man is a party to the acts of his own govern- ment; and when one government declares or enters upon war against another, the two nations become enemies, and all the sub- jects of the one are the enemies of the subjects of the other." It follows, therefore, that a promissory note made by a citizen of one country payable to a citizen of another, when such countries are at war with each other, is invalid and cannot be collected ; and 56. Reason for rule. — Matthews v. See Mitchell v. United States, 21 Wall. MoStea, 91 U. S. 7, 23 L. Ed. (U. S.) 350: Brig Mary Warwick, 2 188, in which Justice Strong uses Black (U. S.), 635. the following language : " It must It was held that during the Civil be conceded, as a general rule, to be War two citizens of the United States, one of the immediate consequences of residing in loyal States, could make a declaration of war and the effect of a valid contract for the sale or mort- a state of war, even when not declared, gage of cotton growing on a plantation that all commercial intercourse and within one of the insurgent States, dealing between the subjects or ad- and such a contract would pass exist- herents of the contending powers is ing cotton on the plantation, and also unlawful, and is interdicted. The crops to be subsequently raised reasons for this rule are obvious, thereon. Briggs v. United States, 143 They are, that, in a, state of war, all U. S. 346, 12 Sup. Ct. 391. the members of each belligerent are 57. Edwards on Bills and Notes, respectively enemies of all the citizens p. 75. of the other belligerent; and were com- Reason as stated by Chancellor meroial intercourse allowed, it would Kent. — Chancellor Kent says, in Gris- tend to strengthen the enemy, and af- wold v. Waddington, 16 Johns. (N. ford facilities for conveying intelli- Y.) 438: "I think I may venture to gence, and even for traitorous corre- hazard the assertion, that there is spondence. Hence it has become an no authority in law, whether that law established doctrine that war puts an be national, maritime, or municipal, end to all commercial dealing between for any kind of private, voluntary, un- the citizens or subjects of the nations licensed business, communication, or or powers at war, and ' places every intercourse with an enemy. It is all individual of the respective govern- noxious, and in a greater or less de- ments, as well as the governments gree it is all criminal. Every at- themselves, in a state of hostility.'" tempt at drawing distinctions has See also Briggs v. United States, 143 failed; all kinds of intercourse, ex- U. S. 346, 12 Sup. Ct. 391; Alexandria cept that which is hostile, or created Sav. Bank v. McVeigh, 84 Va. 48, 51, 3 by the mere exigency of war and neces- S. E. 889, where it is held that an in- sity of the case, is illegal. The law dorser of a note is not bound by a has put the sting of disability into notice left at his house which he had every kind of voluntary communica- abandoned during the war. Hershaw tion and contract with an enemy, V. Kelsey, 100 Mass. 561. which is made without special per- Application to civil war. — The prin- mission of the government. There is ciples of the public law relating to wisdom and policy, patriotism and the rights of citizens of belligerent safety, in this principle, and every nations are applicable in nearly every relaxation of it tends to corrupt the respect to a civil war existing between allegiance of the subject, and prolong different portions of the same nation, the calamities of war." § 27. Executors and Administeatoes. 71 it has been held that a bill drawn by an alien enemy on a British subject in England, and indorsed to a British subject abroad, cannot be enforced even after the restoration of peace.'* The rule applies, not only to citizens and native-born subjects, but to all persons voluntarily domiciled in either country. The place of the transaction does not make it illegal; the material question is, whether it renders assistance to an alien enemy in the time of war. Eor example, it has been held in England that an action may be sustained there by a neutral on a promissory note given to him by a British subject in an enemy's country for goods sold there.'*® If the contract be in favor or for the benefit of an alien enemy not domiciled in the country, it is void both at law and in equity ; but it is not void where it is made for the benefit of a neutral, and it seems that although a bill be drawn by an alien enemy, it may be. valid in the hands of a neutral who received the same without any previous understanding or knowledge of any intended illegal use to be made of it.^ B. PERSONS ACTING IN FIDUCIARY CAPACITY. } 37. Executors and administrators. a. In general. — Executors and administrators, as the legal repre- sentatives of their decedents, succeed to all the interests of such decedents; and all the rights and remedies of such decedents in respect to their contracts and instruments, negotiable or otherwise, pass to their executors and administrators. So far as the assets of the estates under their control will admit, they also succeed to all the obligations of their decedents. This is subject, however, to the important exception in respect to those contracts, whether express or implied, which are so entirely personal to the deceased, that no one can fill his place or become his substitute ; so that all the rights and obligations arising under such contracts die with him.«i 58. Williams v. Patteson, 7 Taunt, of peace he might recover the amousi (Eng.) 439, 1 Moore, 333; Brandon v. from the acceptor; and the decision Nesbit, 6 T. R. (Eng.) 23. was placed on the ground that other- But where two British subjects were wise such persons would sustain detained prisoners in France, and one greater privations during their deten- of them drew a bill in favor of the tion. Centoine v. Morshead, 6 Taunt, other on a third British subject, resi- (Eng.) 237. dent in England, and such payee in- 59. Houriet v. MorriSj 3 Campb. dorsed the same in Prance to an alien (Eng.) 803. enemy, it was decided that the alien's 60. Story on Bills, |§ 103, 104. right of action was only suspended 61. Parsons on Notes and Bills, p. during the war, so that on the return 154: Petrie v. Voorhees, 18 N. J, Eq. 72 Parties and theie Capacity. § 27. b. Bills and notes by executors and administrators.. — It may be stated as a general rule that an executor or administrator cannot bind the estate of the decedent by making or indorsing a promis- sory note as such executor or administrator.*^ An executor or administrator can only bind himself by his contracts; the assets of the estate under his control are only bound for the debts con- tracted by the decedent during his lifetime.®* If an executor or administrator make a negotiable promissory note, or accept a bill of exchange, and the same be transferred before it becomes due, he is held to a personal liability thereon ; because he himself makes in such a case a positive promise to pay, and executes it in the form of a negotiable instrument. Having no power to bind the estate of 285, in which it was held that exec- pay,'' etc., and concluded with the utors are in general bound by all the words, " and charge the amount covenants of the testator, except such against me and my mother's estate," as must be performed by the testator and was accepted by writing across its in person. See also McCrady v. Bris- face, " accept, S., executor." It was bane, 1 Nott & MeC. (S. C.) 104, 9 held that the acceptor was liable in Am. Dec. 676; Parker v. Barlow, 93 his capacity as executor only. Ga. 700, 21 S. E. 213. As to contracts 63. MeParlin v. Stinson, 56 Ga. of a personal nature, see Cochran v. 396; Harrison v. McClelland, 57 Ga. Davis, 15 Ky. 119; McGill v. McGill, 531 ; Lynch v. Kirby, 65 Ga. 486; 59 Ky. 258; Marvel v. Phillips, 162 Brightwell v. Jordan, 74 Ga. 486; Mass. 399, 38 N. E. 1117, 44 Am. St. White v. Thompson, 79 Me. 207, 9 Atl. Rep. 370, 26 L. R. A. 416; Chambers ng; Rittenhouse v. Ammerman, 64 V. Wright, 40 Mo. 482, 93 Am. Dee. Mo. 197, 27 Am. Rep. 215, which was 311; Russell V. Buckhout, 87 Hun, ^n action on a note drawn "I prom- 46, 34 N. Y. Supp. 271; Gray v. Haw- jge to pay," etc., signed "A., executor," kins, 8 Ohio St. 449, 72 Am. Dec. 600; ^nd it was held that the burden was White's Exrs. v. Commonwealth, 39 <,„ tj^e executor, and it was competent Pa. St. 167. for him to show that, as his individual 62. Boggs V. Wann (C. C), 08 Fed. contract, the note was without con- 681; Winter v. Hite, 3 Iowa, 142; gideration, and that the payee had Dunne v. Deery, 40 Iowa, 251; Liv- 4 t^ ^^^^ „„1 ^g ^.^e estate. In ingston V Gaussen, 21 La Ann. 286, the case of Schmittler v. Simon, 114 99 Am. Dec 731; Studebaker Bros, jj y. 176, 21 N. E. 162, it was held Mg Co. V. Montgomery 74 Mo 101; ^^^.^^ ^o exclude evidence to the effect ^^V^'^i,^ ""V^i^^/'v.^",, "-JIKt. * tliat wl»en a draft was drawn upon In New York it has been held that ^^ executor and accepted by him as although an administrator, after or- ^^^^ jj. ^^3 understood between the dermg a tombstone for his intestate, ^^ ^^^ plaintiff that it gave his note for it, he remains liable ,„„„ 4. i;_ -j j. j j-i, j >„ ^ J ■ ■ i i • j.1. u c was to be paid out of the drawers. as administrator, in the absence of :„4..,.„j. .•„ A,„ „„4.„4.„ 4.i,„i j„f j„„(. proof that he contracted for the tomb- J^^„'t * to^ the estate; that defendant stone in his individual capacity. The ^^f ^^^^ ^V^'"'^ P5:«f'"'=e he would note will in such a case be deemed to °°^ "^f ^P* °^ become liable personally, have been given as collateral to his "■°^, '* ^^? agreed that he should ac- indebtedness as administrator. Laird fP* ™ ^'^^ capacity as executor, to V. Arnold, 25 Hun, 4. And in this ^^ P^'^ oBly out of the drawer's in- State in the case of Schmittler v. Merest in the estate. See also Boyd Simon. 25 Hun, 76 (revd. on other v. Johnston, 89 Tenn. 284, 14 S. W. grounds, 114 N. Y. 176, 21 N. E. 162), 804; Hostetter v. Hoke, 17 Kan. 81; where a draft beginning with the O'Brien v. Jackson, 167 N. Y. 31, 60 words : " Mr. S., executor, will please N. E. 238. §27. Executors and Administeatoes. 73 the deceased, his unqualified promise to pay is held to bind him to a personal responsibility ; especially where the promise is made in a form that imports or implies a sufficient consideration-^ He does not limit his liability by describing himself as executor, un- less he expressly confines his stipulation to pay out of the estate f^ and in such a case the bill or note is no longer n^otiable.^ It has also been held that the renewal of a note of a testator by his executor makes him personally liable.*^ It would seem, however, that although an administrator cannot bind the estate by a note signed by him as executor, yet the estate is liable for the con- sideration of the note if it is for the payment of a legal debt against the estate.^ There is a sufficient consideration for a note signed by an executor or administrator in his official capacity to bind him personally (1) when the maker has assets in his hands which he might have applied in payment of the debt for which the note was given, and (2) where a consideration for his promise has been received by the executor or administrator himself.®* 64. Edwards on Bills and Notes, p. 78. 65. Childs V. Monins, 2 B. & B. (Eng.) 460; King v. Thorn, 1 Term E. (Eng.) 489; Serle v. Waterworth, 4 Mces. & W. (Eng.) 9; Davis v. French, 20 Me. 21. Signature " as executor," etc. — The cases are very numerous to the effect that the addition of an official character to the signatures of exec- utors and administrators, in executing written contracts and obligations, has no significance, and operates merely to identify the person and not to limit or qualify the liability. Schmitt- ler V. Simon, 101 N. Y. 554, 558, 54 Am. Eep. 737. In this action a draft was accepted by the drawer " as executor " in which the drawer di- rected him to " charge the amount against me and my mother's estate." The executor was held personally liable. But see s. u., 114 N. Y. 176, 21 N. E. 162. The mere designa- tion of himself as " trustee " by a party to a contract does not relieve him of personal liability thereon. To do this he must stipulate that the other party is to look solely to the trust estate. Taylor v. Mayo, 110 U. S. 330, 28 L. Ed. 163. See also Hop- son V. Johnson, 110 Ga. 283, 34 S. E. 848; Jenkins v. Phillips, 41 App. Div. 389, 58 N. Y. Supp. 788. 66. Personal liability of executor, etc. — ^An executor or administrator, if he make, indorse, or accept nego- tiable papei', will be held personally liable, even if he adds to his own name the name of his ofiSce, signing a note for example, "A., as executor of B.," for this will be deemed only a part of his description, or will be rejected as surplusage. But if he chooses to exclude his personal lia- bility expressly, as by the words, " I promise to pay, etc., out of the assets of C. D., deceased, and not otherwise," or use any clearly equivalent language, then he is only bound so far as the assets extend. But the instrument, in that case, will not be a bill of ex- change or promissory note, because not payable at all events. The same rule is applicable to guardians, trus- tees, and all persons acting in a rep- resentative capacity, except agents. Parsons on Notes and Bills, p. 161. 67. Yerger v. Foote, 48 Miss. 62; Cornthwaite v. Bank, 57 Ind. 268. 68. Dunne v. Deery, 40 Iowa, 251. 69. The consideration upon which a promise of an executor as such is held to be binding at law, whett there are assets sufiicient to pay the debt or legacy, is that the executor, having sufficient assets for the purpose, is boundj both morally and by virtue of 74 Pakties and theie Capacity. 27. c. Rights of executors and administrators as to bills and notes of decedents. — The executor or administrator of a deceased party to a Mil or note has, in general, the same rights in respect thereto, as his testator or intestate.™ Only the executors or administrators, and not the heirs or next of kin of deceased persons, can claim possession of his bills and notes, or demand payment, or put them in suit.''^ In suing upon them, they must set out distinctly the facts which constitute their representative capacity, because this is a part of their title. ''^ It has been held not suflBcient to describe themselves as executors, nor even to aver that they were duly ap- pointed ; but they are required to set out the proceedings, so that the court may see that the appointment was legal.''^ his office, to pay the debt or legacy, and such duty is a sufficient considera- tion to support a promise to pay, so that indebitatiis assumpsit will lie upon it. McGrath v. Barnes, 13 S. C. 328, 36 Am. Eep. 687. See also Troy Bank v. Topping, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 273, which was an action against an administrator, on a promissory note payable in sixty days. It was held that the delay of payment for sixty days could not be construed as an agreement to forbear, and that the promise was midum pactum, unless there were assets at the time it was made. Walker v. Patterson, 36 Me. 273; Snead v. Coleman, 7 Gratt. (Va.) 300, 56 Am. Dec. 112. Where an administrator undertakes to bind the estate by a note, believing he has due authority, but in point of fact having no authority, he will be held personally liable, because where one of two innocent persons must suf- fer a loss, he ought to bear it who has been the sole means of producing it, by expressly or impliedly inducing the other to place a. false confidence in his acts, and because an administrator, who enters into a contract to bind the estate, impliedly warrants his own au- thority to so bind it. Farmers' Co-op. T. Co. V. Floyd, 47 Ohio St. 525, 26 N. E. 110, 12 L. R. A. 346; White v. Madison, 26 N. Y. 124; Frankland v. Johnson, 147 111. 525, 35 N. E. 480; Jefts v. York, 10 Cush. (Mass.) 395. See also Germania Bank v. Michaud, 62 Minn. 459; 65 N. W. 70, 30 L. R. A. 286, in which case the court says: "When the e-xecutor or administrator. having assets of the estate applicable to the payment of the debt, gave hia own note to the creditor for such debt, it amounted to an appropriation of the assets to the amount of the debt to the payment thereof; and this con- stituted a sufficient consideration for bis promise, and he was personally liable, whether he made the note as ad- ministrator or in his own right. If he failed to reimburse or indemnify himself, it was his own fault, and no concern of the creditor. But if, with- out any new consideration, he gave his note for the debt of the deceased when he had no assets, there was no con- sideration for the note, and his prom- ise to pay was nudum pactum." 70. Byles on Bills (16th ed.), p. 62. The executors of every person are im- plied in himself and bound without naming; per Lord Macclesfield, in Hyde v. Skinner, 2 P. Wms. (Eng.) 196. 71. Morse v. Clayton, 13 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 373. 73. Parsons on Notes and Bills, p. 154. 73. Beach v. King, 17 Wend. (N. Y.) 197, in which the court says: "The defendant cannot be adminis- trator unless letters of administration of the goods, chattels, and credits of the intestate had been granted to him by one of the surrogates of this State. The proper mode of pleading the fact, is by direct allegation that such let- ters were granted. The defendant has not pursued that course, but pleads that he was duly appointed adminis- trator. This allegation consists partly of matter of fact and partly of mat- § 27. EXECUTOES AND Administeatoes. 75 d. Indorsement hy executor or administrator. — A promissory note or bill of exchange, made payable to the deceased or his order, may be indorsed by his executor or administrator.''* And, gen- erally speaking, there is no difference between an indorsement of a note by the deceased, and one by his personal representative.^® It is provided in the Negotiable Instruments Law that where any person is under obligation to indorse in a representative capacity, he may indorse in such terms as to negative personal liability.''® A delivery of a note, indorsed by the payee before his death, by the executors of such payee, without their indorsement, is insuf- ficient to pass title; there must in every case be an indorsement and delivery by the executors.''^ The question of the sufficiency of an indorsement to pass title will be considered hereafter.''® An executor or administrator may, under certain conditions, be com- pelled to indorse a bill or note ; as where the decedent made a valid contract, for the consummation of which delivery and iadorse- ter of law, and is not capable of trial, maintain actions in their own names That the defendant was appointed ad- against the debtors in another State, miniatrator by somebody, or in some if the debts are negotiable promissory form, is a question of fact; but notes, or if the law of the State in whether he was duly appointed or not which the action is brought permits is a question of law. The defendant the assignee of a chose of action to should have stated how he was ap- sue in his own name. Wilkins v. El- pointed, and then the court could de- lett, 108 U. S. 256, 2 Sup. Ct. 641. termine its sufficiency upon demurrer. Where executors who had also been or if an issue to the contrary were appointed trustees under the will in- joined upon the fact of having ob- dorsed a note as rustees, it was held tained letters, the question could be sufficient to pass title notwithstanding determined by jury. the misdescription. Ward v. Venner, 74. Rawhnson v. Stone, 3 Wils 173 jj^ss. 210, 53 N. E. 395. (Eng.) 1; Clark v. Blackington, 110 ^g^ ^^^^ins v. Maule, 2 Jac. & Mass. 374; Rogers v. Zook, 86 Ind. „ ,. ,„ . „.„ 237; Latta v. Miller, 109 Ind. 302; Zc -^ ^'i 1- V /xx -ir % » -,, Hertell v. Bogert, 9 Paige (N. Y.) ^f. Neg. Inst. L. (N. Y ) § 74; 52; Walker V.Craig, 18 111 116; Make: po^t. chap V, § 60; English Bills of peace v. Moore, 10 111. 474; Wilson Exchange Act, 1882, § 41. V. Doster, 7 Ired. Eq. (N. C.) 231; y- ^^ f case where the payee of a Weiderv. Osborn, 20Ore. 307;Mackey "ot«' made payable to him or his V. St. Mary's Church, 15 E. I. 121, 23 "^^f"' j^^d indorsed it, but had died Atl. 108, 2 Am. St. Eep. 881; Aber- without having made any_ delivery of crombie v. Stillman, 77 Tex. 589; J*, and after his death his executors Gaboon v. Moore, 11 Vt. 604; Cleve- J^d merely delivered it so indorsed to land V. Harrison, 15 Wis. 670. *"« plaintiff, it was held that he could The administrator, by virtue of his not maintain his action on the note: appointment and authority as such, — f""" the indorsement of the testator obtains the title in promissory notes 'was incomplete without a delivery by or other written evidences of debt, hi™, and the delivery by his exec- held by the intestate at the time of ntors without any indorsement by his death, and coming to the posses- them was inefficacious. Bromage v. sion of the administrator; and may Lloyd, 1 Exch. (Eng.) 32; Bishop v. sell, transfer, and indorse the same; Curtis, 18 Q. B. (Eng.) 879. and the purchasers or indorsees may 78. See post, chap. V, § 56. 76 Paeties and theie Capacity. §27. ment of a bill or note is required.™ And where the decedent de- livered a note to a person for a valuable consideration, but without indorsement, thereby creating a perfect equitable title, though not a legal one, the holder may in equity compel the executor or ad- ministrator of the decedent to give a formal transfer.®** e. Presentment for payment, notices, etc. — Presentment, notice of dishonor, and payment should be made by and to the executor or administrator, in the same manner as by or to the decedent.*^ Where the person primarily liable on the instrument is dead, and no place of payment is specified, presentment for payment must be made to his personal representative, if such there be, and if, with the exercise of reasonable diligence, he can be found.®^ If the holder of the bill be dead, and the executor has not yet pro- duced the will for probate, it is nevertheless the duty of the exec- utor to present the bill when presentable.*^ This is so since tlie title of the executor is derived exclusively from the will, and it vests in him at the moment of the testator's death.®* A different rule exists as to administrators. An administrator's title to his 79. Parsons on Notes and Billa, p. 160. 80. Watkins v. Maule, 2 Jac. & W. (Eng.) 237. Upon the death of the holder of a promissory note, the right of transfer thereof vests in his personal representatives, as well as the power to indorse, and perfect the negotiation of such paper previously transferred by him without indorsement. Malbon v. Southard, 36 Me. 147. 148. 81. Parsons on Notes and Bills, p. 160, says : " In general it is within the power and d\ity of executors or administrators to present for accept- ance or for payment, and give notice of nonacceptanee or nonpayment, and make protest, in the same manner, and for the same causes as the de- ceased could and should have done. And all presentments and demands, and all notices, may and should be made against or given to them in like maimer as against or to the deceased." 83. Neg. Inst. Law, § 136; Eng. Bills of Exch. Act, 1882, § 41. 83. Byles on Bills (16th ed.), p. 63. 84. Wooley v. Clark, 5 B. & Aid. (Eng.) 744. Distinction between executor and administrator. — There is a broad and marked distinction, recognized in the common law, between the authority of an administrator, deriving his pow- ers from the appointment of the or- dinary, and an executor deriving his powers from the will, of which the letters testamentary, granted by the ordinary, are the due and proper au- thentication. The property of goods is vested in the executor before pro- bate. He may pay and receive debts; may commence an action, though he shall not declare; because when he declares, he must make profert of his letters testamentary, if he sues as executor, or if the will is a part of the proof necessary to his title; but he may maintain trover before pro- bate, for goods of the testator taken out of his possession; for there the profert of letters testamentary is not necessary. An administrator can do nothing, though entitled to admin- istration, before administration is granted to him^ inasmuch as he derives his authority, not like an executor from the will, but en- tirely from the appointment of the ordinary. But the title of an executor is derived from the will itself, and he may perform most of the acts incident to his ofSce, before probate. Rand v. Hubbard, 4 Mete. (Mass.) 252, 256. § 27. EXECUTOES AND Administeatoes. 77 intestate's estate does not exist until he has received his letters of administration from the proper court of probate, and until that time he would be excused from presenting the bill.*® The ISTego- tiable. Instruments Law provides that "when any party is dead, " and his death is known to the party giving notice, the notice [of " dishonor] must be given to a personal representative, if there " be one, and if, with reasonable diligence, he can be found. If " there be no personal representative, notice may be sent to the " last residence or last place of business of the deceased." ^ f. Acts of one of two or more executors. — It seems to be well settled that where there are two or more executors appointed un- der a will, they are deemed in law but one person representing the testator ; and the acts done by one of them which relate to the delivery, sale, or release of the testator's goods, are deemed the acts of all. Thus one of two executors may assign a note belong- ing to the estate of their testator ; and he may also pledge such a note or assign it as collateral security for a judgment obtained against the estate of his testator.*^ This rule applies as well to securities given to executors as such, after the death of their tes- tator, as to those given to him in his lifetime, provided the money, when recovered, would be assets.** But where a note for a debt due the testator is made payable to two executors as such, an indorse- ment by one is not sufficient.*® If such a note was made payable 85. See preceding note. Section 141 ous, constitute an entity, and are re- of tlie Neg. Inst. Law (N. Y.) pro- garded in law as an individual person, vides as follows : " Delay in making Consequently the acts of any of them presentment for payment is excused in respect to the administration of when the delay is caused by cireum- estates are deemed to be the acts of stances beyond the control of the all, for they have all a joint and en- holder and not imputable to his fault, tire authority over the whole property, misconduct, or negligence. When the Barry v. Lambert, 98 N. Y. 300, 308. cause of delay ceases to operate, pre- See also Bordereaux v. Montgomery, sentment must be made with reason- Fed. Cas. 1,694, 4 Wash. C. C. 186; able diligence." Herald v. Harper, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 86. Neg. Inst. Law (N. Y.), § 169; 170; Wilkinson v. Wooten, 28 Ga. post, chap. IX, § 108, {g). See also 568; Hord v. Lee, 20 Ky. 36; Dean Eng. Bills of Exch. Act, 1882, § 49 (9). v. Duffield, 8 Tex. 235, 58 Am. Dec. Where the maker of a note dies be- 108; Chapman v. City Council, 30 fore it is due, a demand of payment S. C. 549, 9 S. E. 591, 3 L. R. A. 311. on his widow at the last place of 88. Bogart v. Hertel, 4 Hill (N. Y.), his abode is prima facie a sufficient 492. This case expressly dissents from demand to charge the indorser, the the ruling made in Smith v. Whiting, burden of proof as to whether there 9 Mass. 334, where it was held that was an executor or administrator one of two executors cannot transfer being on the defendant. Bank of by indorsement a negotiable promis- Washington v. Reynolds, Fed. Cas. sory note made to the two as exec- 954, 2 Cranch, 289. utors, for a debt due the testator. 87. Wheeler v. Wheeler, 9 Cow. (N. 89. Smith v. Whiting, 9 Mass. 334; Y.) 34. Coexecutors, however numer- Johnson v. Mangum, 65 N. C. 146. 78 Parties and theie Capacity. § 27. to the deceased, under the rule above stated, either of the exec- utors may transfer the note by indorsement and delivery.*" g. Note due from administrator or executor. — It was a rule of the common law that if a creditor constituted his debtor as his executor, the debt was released and extinguished, for the same hand being at once to receive and pay, the action was suspended ; and a personal action once suspended by the act of the parties is gone forever ; but it was otherwise in equity in the absence of cir- cumstances showing an intention to release the debt, and the equitable doctrine now prevails.®^ The rule at law was never held to apply to administrators. And in equity the rule has been that the debt of the executor to the estate of his testator is considered to have been paid to himself, and becomes assets of the estate in his hands. In this country as in England an executor or ad- ministrator is now charged with the debt he owes to his decedent, and he must account for it in the same manner as other assets of the estate.®* The rule at law did not apply in cases where the Indorsement where note is payable his executor, the acceptor was dis- to two executors. — Where a note for charged at law, and all the other par- a debt due the estate of the decedent is ties also, for a release to the princi- payable jointly to his two administra- pal also discharged the sureties, tors, both must join in an indorsement Freakley v. Fox, 9 B. & C. (Eng.) thereof; and a release of the liability 130; Waukford v. Waukford, 1 Salk. of the maker, in consideration of the (Eng.) 299; Cheetham v. Ward, 1 B. payment of less than the amount due & P. (Eng.) 630. And it has also been thereon, executed by one only of the held that if the payee of a note pay- payees, is insufficient. Clark v. Gram- able on demand constituted the maker ling, 54 Ark. 525, 16 S. W. 475. The of the note his executor, the maker rule in the text is not without its was discharged, not only from his lia- opponents. It is difficult to reconcile bility to the estate of the testator, but the conflict between the cases cited also from his liability as maker to an in this note and that of Bogert v. indorsee to whom the executor as- Hertel, 4 Hill (N. Y.), 492. Parsons, signed it after the testator's death. in his work on Notes and Bills (p. 158), Freakley v. Fox, 9 B. & C. (Eng.) 130. says : " Whether the same rule will But it was otherwise where the note apply to notes taken by them for debts was in the hands of an indorsee at the due the estate has been considered time of the testator's death, doubtful. It would seem to depend 92. Ipswich Mfg. Co. v. Story, 5 upon the question already noticed, Mete. (Mass.) 310. namely, whether such notes are to be In many of the States, as in New considered as assets. And it being York, it is provided that the executor now settled that they are, it seems must account for his debt to the es- that they may be indorsed as effect- tate as assets, and his appointment is ually by one executor as by all." no legal release or extinguishment of 90. Rawlinson v. Stone, 3 Wils. the debt. Code Civ. Pro., i 2714. (Eng.) 1, 2 Stra. 1260. And see Adair v. Brimmer, 74 N. Y. 91. Byles on Bills (16th cd.), p. 64. 539; Matter of Consalus, 95 N. Y. Effect of appointment of maker of 340; Winship v. Bass, 12 Mass. 198; note or acceptor of bill as executor. — Tarbell v. Jewett, 129 Mass. 457 ; Me- lt has been held that if the holder Carty v. Frazer, 62 Mo. 263; Charles of a bill appointed the acceptor as v. Jacob, 9 S. C. 295. § 28. Teustees, Guaedians, Committees, Etc. 7i) assets of the estate were not sufficient to satisfy the testator's debts.'* ( 38. Trustees, guardians, committees, etc. Many of the rules which have already been stated as applying to the rights and liabilities of executors and administrators are also applicable to trustees, guardians, committees, and others act- ing in a fiduciary capacity. It is a general rule regulating the investment of trust funds that such funds cannot be invested in personal securities.®* There must be express authority in the in- strument creating the trust to authorize a loan on personal prom- ises.** It follows, therefore, that a person acting in a position of trust cannot, without violating his duty, loan the money belonging to the trust estate and take as security therefor the promissory note of the person to whom the money is loaned.*® It makes no difference that there are several joint promisors;*^ nor that the loan is to a person to whom the testator loaned money on his per- sonal promise ;** nor will personal sureties justify the loan.®* Trustees and guardians, like executors and administrators, can- not bind the estate under their control, or the persons for whom or for whose benefit they act, by their promissory notes, or by the acceptance of a bill of exchange; to give any validity to such a note or bill they must be deemed personally bound as makers or acceptors.^ A guardian may assign or transfer notes taken by and payable to him as guardian, and the purchaser or assignee who buys gets a good title if he buys in good f aith.^ The rule in respect 03. 2 Bl. Conrm. 512. selling at par, and occasionally at a 04. Perry on Trusts, § 453. premium, may be purchased by a trus- 05. Forbes v. Boss, 2 Bro. Ch. tee with the trust funds, and he will (Eng.) 430; Child v. Child, 20 Beav. Hot be liable for a loss arising from ( Blng. ) 50 ; Simmons v. Oliver, 64 Wis. a failure of the banls before the day 633, in which case a trustee was held stipulated for the payment of the cer- personally liable for a loss occasioned tifieate. Hunt, Appellant, 141 Mass. by his investment of trust funds in a 515, 6 N. B. 554. promissory note made by a manufac- 96. Wallcer v. Symonds, 1 Swanat. turing corporation. (Eng.) 81, in which case Lord Hard- Investments by trustees upon mere wicke says: "A promissory note is personal securities are not regarded evidence of a debt, but no security for by the courts of the State of New it." Jersey as safe, prudent, or proper; 97. Clark v. Garfield, 8 Allen consequently if they be made, they are (Mass.), 427. at the risk of the trustees, who must 98. Styles v. Guy, 1 Mac. & G. personally answer for any loss that (Eng.) 423. may result from them. Dufford v. 99. Watts v. Girdlestone, 6 Beav. Smith, 46 N. J. Eq. 216. (Eng.) 188. A certificate of deposit issued by a 1. Story on Promissory Notes, % 63. national bank, the stock of which is 2. Zoller v. Cleveland, 69 Ga. 631. 80 Parties and theie Capacity. § 29. to transfers of negotiable paper by indorsement applicable to guardians and trustees is the same as in the case of executors and administrators.^ C. PERSONS ACTING IN REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY. 8 29. Agents. a. In general. — Whatever a man may do himself he may do by his agent* An agent has been defined " as a representative vested with authority, real or ostensible, to create voluntary primary obligations for his principal, by making contracts with third per- sons, or by making promises or representations to third persons calculated to induce them to change their legal relations." ^ No particular form of the appointment of an agent is necessary to enable him to bind his principal by making, drawing, indorsing, or accepting bills and notes; he may be specially appointed for this purpose or derive his power from some general or implied authority.® And where the act of an agent in attempting to bind his principal by means of a bill or note is not within the authority conferred upon such agent, it may be subsequently made the act of the principal by ratification.'' 3. See ante, § 27 [d). acts of another by one for whom the 4. Comb's Case, 9 Rep. (Eng.) 75; other assumes to be acting, but with- Lindus v. Bradwell, 5 C. B. (Eng.) out authority; and this results as ef- 583. feetually to establish the duties, rights, Who may act as agent. — Disqualifi- and liabilities of an agency as if the cations for contracting on a person's acts ratified had been fully authorized own account are not necessarily dis- in the beginning. Am. & Eng. Ene. qualifications for contracting as agent of l^w (Vol. 1), p. 1181. See Law- f or another; for an agent is consid- j-ence v. Taylor, 5 Hill (N. Y.), 107; ered as a mere instrument; therefore wilson v. Darue, 08 N. H. 392. infants, married women, persons at- Eatification of agent's acts as to tainted, outlawed, or excommunicated, ^jug ^^j notes.— In the case of Har- ahens and other persons laboring un- ^^^ ^ McDaniels, 126 Mass. 413, it L-tt 52 (a?''' ""^^ '■ appeared that B., acting as the at- '5.' Huffcui on Agency, § 6. \°lf^y "Kb ^^T^ ^l^ °T*- "o?" 6. Byles on Bills (16th ed.), p. 39. '^"^'J °° the back of the note m Octo- 7. Saunderson v. Griffiths, 5 B. & ^''' ^^^^' ^"^f 1^ ^^y- ^l^\' A- f'« C. (Eng.) 909; Vere v. Ashley, 10 ^- ^ P°^«^ "* attorney which author- B & C (Eng ) 288 '^^"^ ^™ t° manage A.'s property dur- Eatification will not relieve the '^^ t^^e absence of the latter from the agent from personal liability on a t^mted States, and to sign notes; that promissory note once incurred. Eos- in August, 1874, A. returned to the siter V. Rossiter, 8 Wend. (N. Y.) 494. United States, a,nd was there when See also on ratification generally, Mc- the note was executed; and that in Cracken V. San Francisco, 16 Gal. 591; August, 1875, A., with other creditors Grant v. Beard, 50 N. H. 129 ; Demp- of the maker of the note in suit, who sey V. Chambers, 154 Mass. 330. had then become bankrupt, signed an Ratification defined. — ^Ratification as agreement of composition under seal, it relates to the law of agency is the and received a dividend on the note express or implied adoption of the from the bankrupt's estate, and agreed §-^9. Agents. 81 b. Authority to make notes and accept hills. — The general au- thority bestowed upon an agent to transact the business of his principal, and to receive payment of and to discharge debts, will not imply an authority to accept or indorse bills, so as to charge the principal.* The power to make or indorse negotiable instru- ments must be expressly granted by the principal.* A power so granted is subject to strict interpretation, and must be performed in strict conformity with the terms thereof.^" A negotiable in- to save the maker of the note harm- less from liability upon such notes as were signed or indorsed by either of them, having been previously informed by B. that he had signed the same in the name of A., under the power of attorney; that after the return of A., and before the note in suit was made, other notes were signed by B., as the attorney for A., with ^o other author- ity than he then possessed under the power, which were subsequently paid by A. It was held that there was sufficient evidence of a ratification of B.'s act. See also Commercial Bank of Buffalo V. Warren, 15 N. Y. 577, 579 ; Dow v. Spenny, 29 Mo. 386. A principal who accepts and retains the proceeds of a note, knowing that it was transferred by his agent upon an unauthorized indorsement, ratifies such indorsement. Baer v. Lichten, 24 111. App. 311. A mere subsequent un- conditional promise to pay a note signed by an agent without authority, is not as a matter of law a ratification, but evidence from which a ratification may be inferred. Commercial Bank v. Bernero, 17 Mo. App. 313; Ousley V. Phillips, 78 Ky. 517, 39 Am. Hep. 258. 8. Hogg V. Smith, 1 Taunt. (Eng.) 347 ; Murray v. East India Co., 5 B. & Aid. (Eng.) 204; Howard v. Baillie, 2 H. Bla. (Eng.) 618; In re Cunning- ham, 35 Ch. Div. (Eng.) 532; Odell V. Cormack, 19 Q. B. D. (Eng.) 223, 56 L. J. Q. B. (Eng.) 463. But where an agent managed a business and acted ostensibly as principal, it was held that he could bind his principal by accepting a bill, even though expressly forbidden so to do. Edmunds v. Bushell, L. K., 1 Q. B. (Eng.) 97. See also Perkins v. Boothby, 71 Me. 91; Temple v. Pomroy, 4 Gray (Mass.), 128; New York Iron Mine v. Bank, 39 Mich. 644. 6 9. Robertson v. Levy, 19 La. Ann. 327; Jackson v. Bank, 92 Tenn. 154, 20 S. W. 802. In the leading English case of Attwood v. Munnings, 7 B. & G. (Eng.) 273, the facts were as fol- lows: A. B., who carried on business on his own account, and also in part- nership, went abroad and gave to cer- tain persons in England two powers of attorney; by the first of which, au- thority was given for him, and in his name and to his use to do certain spe- cific acts (and amongst others, to in- dorse bills, etc.), and generally to act for him, as he might do if he were present; and by the second, authority was given "for him and on his behalf, to accept bills drawn on him by his agents or correspondents." C. D., one of A. B.'s partners (and who acted as his agent), in order to raise money for the payment of creditors of the joint concern, drew a bill which the attorney accepted in A. B.'s name by procuration. In an action against A. B. by the indorsee of the bill, it was held, first, that the right of the in- dorsee depended upon the authority given the attorney; second, that the power only applied to A. B.'s indi- vidual and not to his partnership af- fairs; third, that the special power to accept extended only to bills drawn by an agent in that capacity; and that C. D. did not draw the Dills in ques- tion as agent, but as partner; and fourth, that the general words in the power of attorney were not to be construed at large, but as giving general powers for the carrying into effect the special purposes for which they were given. 10. Parmington Sav. Bank v. Buz- zell, 61 N. H. 612; Batly v. Carswell, 2 Johns. (N. Y.) 48; Nixon v. Pal- mer, 8 N. Y. 398 ; Craighead v. Peter- sen, 72 N. Y. 279; Camden Safe Dep. Co. V. Abbott, 44 N. J. L. 257; Brant- 82 Paeties and their Capacity. § 29. strmnent differing in amount from that authorized, or made pay- able at a different time, will not bind the principal.^* There are cases, however, upholding the implied authority of an agent to bind his principal by a bill or note; as where the agent has formerly made a note or drawn a bill for his principal, and such principal had recognized his acts.*^ It is provided in the Nego- tiable Instruments Law that : " The signature of any party may " be made by a duly authorized agent. No particular form of " appointment is necessary for this purpose, and the authority of " the agent may be established as in other cases of agency." ^* c. Liability of person signing as agent. — (1) Statutory pro- vision. — The Negotiable Instruments Law provides : " Where " the instrument contains or a person adds to his signature words " indicating that he signs for or on behaK of a principal, or in a ley V. Southern L. Ins. Co., 53 Ala. is not to be -withheld from the jury, 554 ; Ward v. Kentucky Bank, 7 T. B. where they are to determine from the Mon. (Ky.) 93; Luning v. Wise, 64 whole evidence whether an authority Cal. 410. to indorse existed or not." 11. As to diflferent amount, see King And in the American States there V. Sparks, 77 Ga. 285; Blackwell v. seems to be a, similar doctrine as to Ketcham, 53 Ind. 184; Nixon v. Pal- implied authority. New York Iron mer, 8 N. Y. 398. As to time, see Mine Co. v. Bank, 39 Mich. 644; Tate V. Evans, 7 Mo. 419; N. Y. Iron Trundy v. Parrar, 32 Me. 225; Ed- Mine Co. V. Citizens' Bank, 44 Mich, ^ards v. Thomas, 66 Mo. 468. In 344. If an agent is authorized to the case of Odiorne v. Maxay, 13 Mass. execute a note payable in six months, igg, it was held that the general the agent cannot bind the principal ^gent of a company may give its note by a note payable m sixty days. Batty f^^ purchases necessary to carry on ^- £^'T^f."' ^ ^°M,"'- ^^k7;} ,^^;„, its business. 13. Allmv Williams, 97 Cal. 403; ^^ t, authorized to transact a Turner V. Keller 66 N Y. 66 particular affair, may execute a note Implied authority.-^An authority is ^^^^^^ ^5^1, „thers who have a corn- often implied from circumstances; as '^^^ interest in the subject-matter, to If the agent has formerly been in the ^j^^ necessary expenses for the ac- habit of drawing, accepting, or mdors- ^omplishment of a common end. Layet ing for his principal and his prin- ^ ^ ^^ q^. ^gg cipal has recognized his acts Thus, Inst. Law (N. Y.), § 38 to an action against an acceptor of a i" ' &■ ^^o"- ■"•^'" ^"- ■^•'> " "" bill, the defensi was, that the drawer .,=««=4°* signature without author- had forged the acceptor's signature, '^^'-^X .^^fo'^^^^ Instruments in answer to which it was proled that ^^J (N- Y.), § 42, also provides that: the defendant had previously paid Where a signature is forged or mode such acceptances; and this was held t(»