(k) Wain v. Bailey, 10 A. & E. 616; McGregory v. McGregory, 107 Mass. 543; Tucker v. Tucker, 119 Mass. 79. See King v. Zimmerman, L. R. 6 C. P. 466.

51; Force v. Elizabeth, 1 Stewart, 403; Exchange Bank v. Hartford, etc. R. Co., 8 R. I. 375; Dinsmore v. Duncan, 57 N. Y. 573; Chesapeake Co. v. Blair, 45 Md. 102, 110; Griffith v. Burden, 35 Ia. 138, 142; San Antonio v. Lane, 32 Tex. 405. See Crouch v. Credit Foncier of England, L. R. 8 Q. B. 374. - An interest coupon detached from a mortgage bond of a railroad is negotiable by delivery and may be enforced against the corporation by a bona fide holder who has no interest in and cannot produce the bond. Haven v. Grand Junction R. Co., 109 Mass. 88. To the same effect are Evertson v. Newport Bank, 66 N. Y. 14; Cicero v. Clifford, 53 Ind. 191; Kennard v. Cass. Co., 3 Dillon, 147. "Interest coupons detached from bonds, payable to bearer at a specified time and place, are negotiable promises for the payment of money, and therefore subject to the same rules as bank-notes or other negotiable instruments. They are, in effect, promissory notes by the law merchant, and possess all the attributes of negotiable paper." Royce, J., in North Bennington Bank v. Tabor, 52 Vt. 87, 93. - Days of grace are not allowed on coupons. Chaffee v. Middlesex R. R., 146 Mass. 224, 234; Arents v. Commonwealth, 18 Grat. 750, 773. But see contra Evertson v. Newport Bank, 66 N. Y. 14. - K.

(l) Pierson v. Hutchinson, 2 Camp. 211; Hansard v. Robinson, 7 B. & C. 90; Clay v. Crowe, 18 E. L. & E. 514; Davis v. Dodd, 4 Taunt. 602; Poole v. Smith, 1 Holt, 144; Rowley v. Ball, 3 Cowen, .303; Kirby v. Sisson, 2 Wend. 550; Devlin v. Clark, 31 Mo. 22. But evidence is admissible to show that the note has been actually destroyed, or that it cannot come to the hands of a bona fide holder. Rolt v. Watson, 4 Bing. 273; Rowley v. Ball, supra. The case where a bank-bill is cut in halves and one of them is lost, and payment sought for the other, would seem to stand upon the same grounds as that of a lost negotiable instrument. Mayor v. Johnson, 3 Camp 324. But see Bullet v. Bank of Pennsylvania, 2 Wash. C. C. 172; Patton v. State Bank, 2 Nott & McC. 464; Hindsdale v. Bank of Orange, 6 Wend. 378.

(m) Pierson v. Hutchinson, 2 Camp. 211; Lord Eldon, in Ex parte Greenway, 6 Ves. 812.

(n) Aranguren v. Scholfield, 38 E. L. & E. 424; Morgan v. Reintzel, 7 Cranch, 273.

(o) New York, Alabama. Mississippi.

(p) Meeker v. Jackson, 3 Yeates, 442; Anderson v. Robson, 2 Bay, 495; Fales v. Russell, 16 Pick. 315; Ballet v. Bank of Penn. 2 Wash. C. C. 172; Swift v. Stevens, 8 Conn. 431; Thayer v. King, 15 Ohio, 242.

(q) Aborn v. Bosworth, l R I. 401; Swift v. Stevens, 8 Conn 431; Rogers v. Miller, 4 Scam. 334; McNair v. Gilbert, 3 Wend. 344; Pintard v. Tackington, 10 Johns. 104; Wright v. Wright, 54 N. Y. 437, 441.