(o) Hatch v. Trayes, 11 A. & E. 702; Grant v. Da Costa, 3 M. & Sel. 351; Benjamin v. Tillman, 2 McLean, 213; Bristol v. Warner, 19 Conn. 7; Poplewell v. Wilson, 1 Stra. 264; Lines v. Smith, 4 Fla. 47; Clark v. Schneider, 17 Mo. 295.

(p) Delano v. Bartlett, 6 Cush. 364. But see Fitch v. Redding, 4 Sandf. 130.

(pp) Backman v. Jenks, 55 Barb. 468.

(pq) Hull v. Augustine. 23 Wis. 383.

(q) Bennington v. Dinsmore, 2 Gill, 348. See also as to necessary certainty of the payee, Cowie v. Stirling, 6 E. & B. 333.

(r) Attenborough v. Mackenzie, 36 E. L. & E. 562; Blair v. Bank of Ten nessee, 11 Humph. 84. But a drawee who is only an accommodation acceptor, drawer is therefore liable in very much the same way as the indorser of a note. And as with a note so with a bill of exchange, the payee must be sufficiently certain, that is, a person capable of being ascertained at the time the instrument is drawn. (s)1

1 Thus " On demand, with interest, please pay J. S. or order, fifty-five dollars," is a promissory note. Almy v. Winslow, 126 Mass. 42. - K.

2 A reference to the consideration in a note does not affect its negotiability. Clanin v. Esterly Co. 118 Ind. 373; Siegel v. Chicago Bank, 131 Ill. 569; Taylor v. Curry, 109 Mass. 36; Collins v. Bradbury, 64 Me. 37; Hillstrom v. Anderson, 49 Northwestern Rep. 187 (Minn.); Garrett v. Interstate Bank, 79 Tex. 133. In Missouri, by statute, the words " for value received " must be inserted, to make a note negotiable. Bailey v. Smock, 61 Mo. 213.

So too the payer should be certain; and generally if one who is guardian or trustee or the holder of sonic office, signs with his name, adding thereto the name of his function or office, with intent to make himself liable only in that capacity, such addition will generally be held only as words of description, and he will be personally liable on the note. (ss) This question has been considered in the chapter on Agents, and the section on the Signature of an Agent.

If the payee be a fictitious person, an innocent indorsee may sue the drawer or maker; but as to the acceptor it has been held that he is answerable only if he knew that the payee was fictitious. But we should have some doubts of this. (t) 2

Where instruments are not negotiable, third parties may become interested; but, if they are to be regarded as new parties at all, it is only with much qualification.

is but a surety for the drawer for most purposes. Parks v. Ingram, 2 Foster (N. H.), 283; Steman v. Harrison, 42 Penn. St. 49.

(s) Yates v. Nash, 98 Eng. C. L. 581; 1 Parsons, Notes and Bills, 61.

(ss) Foster v. Fuller, 6 Mass. 58; Fiske v. Eldridge, 12 Gray, 474.

(t) Collis v. Emett, 1 H. Bl. 31.3; Munet v. Gibson, 3 T. R. 481. See Stevens v. Strang, 2 Sandf. 138.

1 A note payable to "the secretary for the time being " of an association has been held not to designate the payee with sufficient certainty. Cowie v. Stirling, 6 E. & B. 333. And see Vales v. Nash, 8 C. 15. N. s. 581; King v. Box, 6 Taunt. 325. So a note to " J. P. Treasurer, or his successor." Patton v Melville, 21 Up. Can. Q. B. 263. But similar notes were sustained in Tainter v. Winter, 53 Me. 348; McDonald v. Laughlin, 74 Me. 480; Fisher v. Ellis, 3 Pick. 321. A note made payable to "the trustees of Wesleyan Chapel or their treasurer for the time being" is sufficiently certain, the trustees being the payees and the treasurer merely their agent to receive payment. Holmes v. Jaques, L. R. 1 Q. B. 376: Noxon v. Smith, 127 Mass. 489. And notes made payable to an officer of a corporation by the name of his office, as to the "Cashier of The First Bank," have been held negotiable, though the person holding the office might change, as being payable to the corporation itself by the name of its officer. Nave v. Hadley, 74 Ind. 155; Nave v. First Nat. Bank, 87 Ind. 204; First Nat. Bank v. Hall, 44 N. Y. 395. A note payable to " A or B" is uncertain. Blanckenhagen v. Blundell, 2 B. & Ald. 417; Carpenter v. Farnsworth, 106 Mass. 561. But now in England a note may be made payable to two or more persons alternatively or to the holder of an office for the time being. Bills of Exchange Act, § 7. (2).

A note payable to the "estate of A " is in effect payable to his personal representatives, and as it is enough to describe the payee without naming him, is good in form. M'Kinney v. Barter, 7 Blackf. 385; Shaw v. Smith, 150 Mass. 166; Peltier v Babil-lion. 45 Mich. 384. Contra Tittle v. Thomas, 30 Miss. 122; Lyon v. Marshall, 11 Barb. 241.

2 In Bank of England v. Vagliano, 22 Q. B. D. 103; 23 Q. B. D. 243 (C. A.), [1891] App. ( as. 107,the defendants' clerk G. forged letters of advice and bills of exchange, writing the Letters and drawing the bills in the name of a customer who had unlimited credit. G. was able by his position to have the forged letters and hills put before one of the defendants who, believing them to be genuine, accepted the bills, which were all payable to P. & Co., an actual firm well known to the defendants. G. secured the bills