Until a bill of exchange is accepted by the drawee, no obligation to pay it as a party to the bill exists upon the drawee's part,1 unless the acceptor waives acceptance, which he may do by parol;2 nor if the bill of exchange is drawn generally, and is not payable out of a particular fund, can it be considered; nor can it operate as an assignment of any funds of the drawer in the hands of the drawee.3 The rule in regard to checks has be withdrawn. If it be withdrawn, a person acting upon it, as we have seen in the last section, must take the risk of the authority being still in existence.

3 New York Stock Bank v. Gibson, 5 Duer, 574. This must be the fraud of the holder.

4 As to checks, see Sec. 150, ante.

1 Dickey v. Harmon, 1 Cranch, C. C. 201; Colorado Bank v. Boett-cher, 5 Colo. 185; Reilly v. Daly, 159 Pa. 605; Northumberland Bank v. McMichael, 106 Pa. 160; Kimball v. Donald, 20 Mo. 597; Hankin v. Squires, 5 Biss. 186.

2 Wintermute v. Post, 24 N. J. Law, 420, semble. Promises to accept may be considered as waivers also; so may authority to draw.

3 Kimball v. Donald, 20 Mo. 597; Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Wright, 38 Mo. App. 141; Brill v. Tuttle, 81 N. Y 457; Hoi brook v. Payne, 151 Mass. 383; Bush v. Foote, 58 Miss. 5; Marysville Bank v. Brewing Co., 50

Ohio St. 151; Hopkins v. Beebe, 26 Pa. 85; Randolph v. Canby, Fed. Cas. 11,559; Winter v. Drury, 5 N. Y. 525. Even where the draft is for the exact amount of the fund it is not an assignment. Shand v. Du Buisson, L. R. 18 Eq. 283; Bush v. Foote, 58 Miss. 5. Contra, Wheatley v. Strobe, 12 Cal. 97. (See Cushman v. Harrison, 90 Cal. 297.) Nimocks v. Woodey, 97 N. C. 1. The designation of the fund or particular account for reimbursement does not make the bill of exchange an assignment. Whitney v. Eliot Nat. Bank, 137 Mass. 354; Schmittler v. Simon, 101 N. Y. 554

4 See Sec. 146, ante, notes 15,16, 17, and Sec. 147, ante.

5 Shaver v. West. Union Tel. Co., 57 N. Y. 459; Woodruff v. Hensel, 5 Colo. App. 103. Order out of particular fund. Indiana Mfg. Co. v. Porter, 75 Ind. 428

6See Sec. 146, ante, note 17, and Throop Grain Co. v. Smith 110 N. Y.

83 (a draft). The case of North v. Campbell, 72 I11. 380, has a misleading head-note. The decision really holds, however, that a draft drawn generally was an assignment of the fund prepared to meet it. The case should have been decided on the ground that the draft was drawn by an agent .against the principal, who was in fact drawee, and the draft was accepted by the manner in which it was drawn.

7 Such orders are not bills of exchange, they are assignments. See Sec. 207, ante. Implied acceptances might be classed under this head as assignments. See Hall v. First Nat. Bank, 133 I1L 234; Milling v. Sloan, 57 Ga. 392; Cowperthwaite v. Sheffield, 1 Sandf. 416; Lowery v. Steward, 25 N. Y. 239; Miltenberger v. Attwood, 18 How. Pr. 330. But see Exchange Bank v. Rice, 107 Mass. 37.

8 Gurnee v. Hatton, 63 Hun, 197; Hopkins v. Nash Co., 77 N. W. R. 53.

9 See Sec. Sec. 215 to 222, ante.

10 See Halsey v. Warden, 25 Kan. 128; Michigan State Bank v. Gardner, 15 Gray, 362.

11 See Sec. 214, ante, and note 7, supra, and Halsey v. Warden, 25 Kan. 128. But see Calhoun v. Manuf. Bank, 36 Ga. 410, and Ware v. Macon City Bank, 59 Ga. 840.

12SeeSec. 214, ante.

13 North v. Campbell, 72 111. 380. See for an explanation of this case note 6, supra.

14 This must be in writing under the statute of frauds. See Debesse v. Napier, 1 McCord, 106.

15 See Sec. Sec. 208 and 209, ante.

16 See Brown v. Jackson, 1 Wash. C. C. 512, for a non-negotiable order, and see Sec. 225, post, note 2.

17 See Sec. 225, post.

18 Hall v. Conk, 17 S. W. R. 1022.

19 This would not be a suit on the paper, but for damages.

20 Parsons v. Armor, 3 Pet 418. This decision is undoubtedly wrong.