1 A bill of exchange drawn in Canada and payable in New York in "gold dollars," is negotiable. Chrysler v. Renois, 43 N. Y. 209. And in Black v. Ward, 27 Mich. 191, it was held that a note made and indorsed in Michigan and payable in Canada, " in Canada currency," was negotiable. In Iowa and Missouri, by statute, promises to pay in goods may be negotiable. Council Bluffs Iron Works v. Cuppey, 41 Ia. 104; Spears v. BondMo. 467.

While it is essential to a bill of exchange that it be an order or positive direction to the drawee to make the payment, it is sufficient if it be substantially so; and the use of the word "please,"

Dawkes v. Lord Lorane, 3 Wils. 207; Beardesley v. Baldwin, 2 Stra. 1151; Roberts v. Peake, 1 Burr. 323; Cook v. Satterlee, 6 Cowen, 108; Van Vacter v. Flack, l Sm. & M. 393; Palmer v. Pratt, 9 J. P. Moore, 358; Dodge v. Emerson, 34 Me. 96.

(j) Reeside v. Knox, 2 Whart. 233; Dyer v. Covington, 19 Penn. St. 200; Raigauel v. Ayliff, 16 Ark. 594; West v. Foreman. 21 Ala. 400; Kinney v. Lee, 10 Tex. 155.

(k) Cooke v. Colehan, 2 Stra. 1217; Andrews v. Franklin. 1 Stra. 24; Evans v. Underwood, 1 Wils. 262; Dawkes v. Lord Lorane, 3 Wils. 207, 213; Washington County Mutual Insurance Company v.

Miller, 26 Vt. 77. In Seacord v. Burling, 5 Denio, 444, it was held that an agreement in writing by which the subscriber to it promised to pay another a sum of money on demand with interest, and added but no demand is to be made as long as the interest is paid, was not a promissory note. And see Richardson v. Martyr, 30 E. L. & E. 365; Kelley v. Hemming-way, 13 Ill. 604. In Gaines 0. Dorsett, 18 La. An. 563, it was held that a note payable "one day after the trety of peas," matured upon the termination of the war. (l) Ellison v. Collingridge, 9 C. B. 570; Lloyd v. Oliver, 12 E. L. & E. 424; s. c. 18 Q. B. 471.

1 A note payable at, or a certain time after, the death of the maker is held to be negotiable. Cooke v. Colehan, 2 Stra. 1217; Colehan v. Cooke, Willes, 393; Conn v Thornton, 46 Ala. 587; Price v. Jones, 105 Ind. 543; Mortee v. Edwards, 20 La. An. 236; Carnwright v. Gray, 127 N. Y. 92; Hegeman v. Moon, 131 N. Y. 462. A note payable at a future day certain, or earlier, is generally held to be negotiable whether the option is with the holder or the maker. Cook v. Horn, 29 L. T. Rep. 369; Ackley School District v. Hall, 113 U. S. 135; Chicago Ry. Equipment Co. v. Merchants' Bank, 136 V. S. 268; Cisne v. Chidester, 85 Ill. 523; 'Walker v. Woollen, 54 Ind. 164; Charlton v. Reed, 61 Ia. 166; Mattison v. Marks, 31 Mich. 421: First Nat. Bank v. Skeen, 101 Mo. 683; Curtis v. Horn, 58 N. H. 504; Ernst v. Steckman, 74 Pa. 13; Bates v. Leclair, 49 Vt. 229. The contrary decisions in Stults v. Silva, 119 Mass. 137; Mahoney v. Fitzpatrick, 133 Mass. 151; Richards v. Barlow, 140 Mass. 218, have been nullified by statute. Acts of 1888, c. 329. Though the option was with the payee it was held that notes were uncertain and not negotiable, in First Nat. Bank v. Bynnm, 84 N. C 24, and Smith v. Marland, 59 Ia. 645.

A note payable in instalments with a provision that if any instalment is unpaid the whole amount shall become due is negotiable. White v. Smith, 77 Ill. 351; Roberts v. Snow, 27 Neb. 425 But see W. W. Kimball Co. v. Mellon, 80 Wis. 133. A note containing a provision that the holder may extend the time of payment indefinitely is not negotiable. Glidden v. Henry, 104 Ind. 27s; Woodbury v. Roberts, 59 Ia. 348; Smith v. van Blarcom, 45 Mich. 371. So a note containing an agreement to renew it at maturity. Citizens' Nat. Hank v. Piollet, 126 Pa. 194.

By construing an apparently indefinite time expressed in a note as equivalent to a reasonable time, it has been held that notes were negotiable when made payable "as soon as collected." Ubsdell v. Cunningham, 22 Mo. 124; " one year from date, and if there is not enough realized by good management in one year to have more time to pay." Capron v Capron, 44 Va.410. And see Works 0. Hershey, 35 Ia. 340; Crooker v. Holmes. 65 Me. 195. Against such forced constructions see Nunez v. Daniel, 19 Wall. 560; Gillespie v. Mather, 10 Pa. 28.

or any equivalent expression, does not alter the character of the instrument. (m)1

If the amount is expressed in the usual way, by figures in the corner or at the bottom, and is also written in words in the body of the note, the written words not only prevail over the written figures, but are said to do this so conclusively, that evidence is not admissible to show that the figures were right, and that the words were omitted by mistake from the body of the note. (n)

Usually bills and notes express the consideration by saying "for value received;" but where this is not expressed, it is implied by law, both as to the makers and the acceptors or indorsers of negotiable bills and notes, and this presumption must be rebutted by evidence if the defence rests on want of consideration. (o)2 And the presumption is so far rebutted as to cast the burden of proof on the holder, by evidence making the consideration doubtful. (p) The defence of illegal consideration is not generally valid if it be not illegal in the State where the note is payable and the action brought. (pp) But as to the question of usury, the note is governed by the laws of the State where it was made. (pq)

To a note there need be but two original parties, a maker and a payee; and these must be sufficiently certain. Thus, no action can be maintained on a note payable " to the heirs, executors, or assigns of A. "(q) To a bill there are three parties, drawer, drawee, and payee. The drawee is not bound until acceptance; and then having become the acceptor, he is regarded as primarily the promisor, and the drawer only collaterally; (r) and the

(m) Wheatley v. Strobe, 12 Cal. 92.

(n) Saunderson v. Piper, 5 Bing. N. C. 425; Riley v. Dickens, 19 Ill. 30; Payne v. Clark, 19 Mo. 152; Mears v. Graham, 23 Neb. 728. And see Garrard v. Lewis, 10 Q. B. D. 30; Smith v. Smith, 1 R,. I. 398.