Sec. 180. Bills in set constitute one bill.-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 constitutes one bill.1 1-Because the means of communication were imperfect and uncertain, the custom arose at an early day to make a foreign bill generally in three but sometimes in four separate parts, the better to facilitate the transmission and insure the delivery of the bill to its destined place. To secure the end sought, these separate parts were forwarded by different messengers or by different modes of transportation. The practice was maintained after the reason for it had for all practical purposes ceased. These several parts constitute but one bill which is called a bill in a set. Each part of the set is numbered and contains a reference to the other parts. Downes v. Church, 13 Pet. (38 U. S.) 207. A form of a bill in a set is as follows: $500.00 New York, August 1, 1905. At sight of this first of exchange, (second and third unpaid) pay to the order of Solon Clark Five hundred dollars. Value received and charge to the account of Daniel Davis. Το Seth Eaton, 1009 Marquette Bldg. Chicago, Ill. The three parts would be triplicates except the second would state, "Pay this second of exchange, (first and third unpaid)"; the third, "Pay this third of exchange, (first and second unpaid)." Walsh v. Blatchley, 6 Wis. 413; Ralli v. Dennistoun, 6 Ex. 483, 20 L. J. Ex. 278; Holdsworth v. Hunter, 10 B. & C. 449. The condition incorporated in bills in a set-sec ond and third unpaid-gives notice that all the parts constitute but one bill. Payment of any part extinguishes the whole. Dur kin v. Cranston, 7 Johns. 442; Wells v. Whitehead, 15 Wend. 527. Sec. 181. Rights of holders where different parts are negotiated.—Where two or more parts of a set are negotiated to different holders in due course, the holder whose title first accrues is as between such holders the true owner of the bill.1 But nothing in this section affects the rights of a person who in due course accepts or pays the part first presented to him. 1-The first indorsement of one of the whole set. Walsh V. set vests in the indorsee the ab- Blatchley, 6 Wis. 413. solute right to the possession Sec. 182. Liability of holder who indorses two or more parts of a set to different persons.-Where the holder of a set indorses two or more parts to different persons he is liable on every such part, and every indorser subsequent to him is liable on the part he has himself indorsed, as if such parts were separate bills.1 1-Holdsworth v. Hunter, 10 B. & C. 449. Sec. 183. Acceptance of bills drawn in sets.-The acceptance may be written on any part, and it must be written on one part only. If the drawee accepts more than one part, and such accepted parts are negotiated to different holders in due course, he is liable on every such part as if it were a separate bill.1 1-This section is substantially Holdsworth v. Hunter, 10 B. & identical with subdivision 4, sec. C. 449; Bank v. Neal, 22 How. 71 of the Bills of Exchange Act. It is declaratory of existing law. (U. S.) 96. Any one of the set may be presented for acceptance and, if not accepted, a right of action arises upon due notice against the indorser. Walsh v. Blatchley, 6 Wis. 413; Downes & Sec. 184. Payment by acceptor of bills drawn in sets.— When the acceptor of a bill drawn in a set pays it without requiring the part bearing his acceptance to be delivered up to him, and that part at maturity is outstanding in the hands of a holder in due course, he is liable to the holder thereon.1 1-Holdsworth v. Hunter, 10 B. & C. 449. Sec. 185. Effect of discharging one of a set.-Except as herein otherwise provided, where any one part of a bill drawn in a set is discharged by payment or otherwise the whole bill is discharged.1 1-Holdsworth v. Hunter, 10 B. & C. 449. See note to section 180. The Wisconsin Act contains the following additional provisions: Sec. 1682. Whenever any bill of exchange drawn or indorsed within this state and payable without the limits of the United States shall be duly protested for non-acceptance or non-payment the party liable for the contents of such bill shall, on due notice and demand thereof, pay the same at the current rate of exchange at the time of the demand, and damages at the rate of five per cent upon the contents thereof, together with interest on the said contents, to be computed from the date of the protest; and said amount of contents, damages and interest shall be in full of all damages, charges and expenses. Sec. 1683. If any bill of exchange drawn upon any person or corporation out of this state, but within some state or territory of the United States, for the payment of money shall be duly presented for acceptance or payment and protested for nonacceptance or non-payment the drawer or indorser thereof, due notice being given of such nonacceptance or non-payment, shall pay said bill with legal interest according to its tenor and five per cent. damages, together with costs and charges of protest. Sec. 186. Promissory note defined.—A negotiable promissory note within the meaning of this act 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 determined future time, a sum certain in money, to order or to bearer. Where a note is drawn to the maker's own order, it is not complete until indorsed by him.2 1-See Bills of Exchange Act, Daniel's Neg. Inst., 5th ed., sec. sec. 83. 163. The statute changes the rule in those states because the statute deals only with negotiable instruments, and so it was held in Yarwood V. Trusts & Guarantee Co. (ltd.), 94 App. Div. 47, 87 N. Y. Supp. 947 (a case under the statute), that a note in the following terms: "I promise to pay Jennie Crawford $5,000 when I die and George Crawford $5,000," imported consideration prior to the act, but The Bills of Exchange Act includes in its definition of 8 promissory note a note payable "to or to the order of a specified person or to bearer," thus embracing instruments which were not negotiable according to the law merchant. In some states a non-negotiable note was held to import consideration by virtue of statutory provision or by interpretation of common law rules. 15 225 that this section changed such prior law. In Deyo v. Thompson, 53 App. Div. 9, 65 N. Y. Supp. 459 (a case under the statute), it was held that a note payable to "a specified person" imported no consideration. See Hickok V. Bunting, 92 App. Div. 167, 86 N. Y. Supp. 1059 (a case under the statute). Certificates of deposit in the ordinary form payable to order or to bearer are in legal effect negotiable promissory notes. Cate v. Patterson, 25 Mich. 191; Tripp v. Curtenius, 36 Mich. 494; Birch v. Fisher, 51 Mich. 36; Beardsley v. Webber, 104 Mich. 88; Curran v. Witter, 68 Wis. 16; Trustees etc. v. Lewis, 34 Fla. 424; Kirkwood v. First Nat. Bank, 40 Neb. 484. A certificate of deposit made out to Z or her assigns was held not a negotiable instrument under this statute. Zander v. N. Y. Security & Trust Co., 81 N. Y. Supp. 1151. Coupon or interest notes are promissory notes. Boyer V. Chandler, 160 Ill. 394. 2-A note payable to the maker's own order satisfies the requirement of the rule that it should be made payable "to another," but only when the note is negotiated. See note 2, sec. 10. This part of the section was referred to, in connection with others, in Hoffman v. Planters' Nat. Bank, 99 Va. 480, 39 S. E. 134. A note drawn payable to the order of the maker and not indorsed by him is valid against the indorser, although he did not know that it was to be issued without the maker's indorsement. C. L. '97, 4870. Peninsular Savings Bank v. Hosie, 112 Mich. 351. Sec. 187. Check defined.-A check is a bill of exchange drawn on a bank,1 payable on demand.2 Except as herein otherwise provided, the provisions of this act applicable to a bill of exchange payable on demand apply to a check.3 1-This section is identical then existing law so far as it dewith section 73 of the Bills of Exchange Act, except that the word "bank" is substituted for "banker." The variation is immaterial, as the words are made synonymous by the terms of the statute. See sec. 2. Sec. 73 of the Bills of Exchange Act was declaratory of fined a check as a bill of exchange. McLean V. Clydesdale Banking Co., 9 App. Cas. 95. See note sec. 128. All checks are bills of exchange but not all bills of exchange are checks. A check is distinguishable from a bill in that it is always drawn on a bank. People v. Kemp, 76 Mich. |