§ 302. Declaration before payment for honor.— The notarial act of honor must be founded on a declaration made by the payer for honor, or by his agent in that behalf declaring his intention to pay the bill for honor and for whose honor he pays.

§ 303. Preference of parties offering to pay for honor.— Where two or more persons offer to pay a bill for the honor of different parties, the person whose payment will discharge most parties to the bill is to be given the preference.

§ 304. Effect on subsequent parties where bill is paid for honor. Where a bill has been paid for honor all parties subsequent to the party for whose honor it is paid are discharged, but the payer for honor is subrogated for, and succeeds to, both the rights and duties of the holder as regards the party for whose honor he pays and all parties liable to the latter (a).

(a) Daniel on Neg. Inst., section 1255.

§ 305. Where holder refuses to receive payment supra protest. Where the holder of a bill refuses to receive payment supra protest, he loses his right of recourse against any party who would have been discharged by such payment.

§ 306. Rights of payer for honor.- The payer for honor, on paying to the holder the amount of the bill and the notarial expenses incidental to its dishonor, is entitled to receive both the bill itself and the protest.

ARTICLE XVI.

BILLS IN A SET.

Section 310. Bills in sets constitute one bill.

311. Rights of holders where different parts are negotiated.

312. Liability of holder who indorses two or more parts of a set to different persons.

313. Acceptance of bills drawn in sets.

314. Payment by acceptor of bills drawn in sets. 315. Effect of discharging one of a set.

8310. Bills in sets 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 constitute one bill (a).

(a) Byles on Bills, 387; Daniel on Neg. Inst., section 113; Durkin v. Cranston, 7 Johns. 442.

8311. 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 (a). But nothing in this section affects the rights of a person who in due course accepts or pays the part first presented to him.

(a) Byles on Bills, 389; Walsh v. Blatchley, 6 Wis. 422.

§ 312. 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 (a).

(a) Holdsworth v. Hunter, 10 C. B. 449; Byles on Bills, 389.

§313. 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 (a).

(a) Holdsworth v. Hunter, 10 C. B. 449; Byles on Bills, 389. Either of the set may be presented for acceptance, and if not accepted a right of action arises, upon due notice, against the indorser. Dounes & Co. v. Church, 13 Peters, 205; Walsh v. Blatchley, 6 Wis. 422, 425.

§ 314. Payment by acceptor of bills in drawn 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 (a).

(a) Byles on Bills, 389.

8 315. 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 (a).

(a) Byles on Bills, 388.

ARTICLE XVII.

PROMISSORY NOTES AND CHECKS.

Section 320. Promissory note defined.

321. Check defined.

322. Within what time a check must be presented. 323. Certification of check; effect of.

324. Effect where holder of check procures it to be certified.

325. When check operates as an assignment.

§ 320. 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 determinable future time a sum certain in money to order or to bearer (a). Where a note is drawn to the maker's own order, it is not complete until indorsed by him (b).

(a) This section makes a change in the law of New York as regards the presumption of consideration in the case of nonnegotiable notes. The terms of the former New York statute included a note payable to a person named therein without words of negotiability. Carnwright v. Gray, 127 N. Y. 92. But as that statute has been repealed, and as the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Law apply only to negotiable promissory notes, it is now necessary to prove consideration in actions upon non-negotiable notes. Deyo v. Thompson, 53 App. Div. (N. Y.) 12. The rules on the subject have differed in the different States. See Daniel on Negotiable Instruments, section 163. In Connecticut the act has made no change in the law; for the rule in that State has been that a non-negotiable note does not import a consideration. Bristol v. Warner, 19 Conn. 17. A certificate of deposit issued by a banker in the ordinary form of such instruments is, in substance and legal effect, a negotiable promissory note. Cur

ran v. Witter, 68 Wis. 16; Maxwell v. Agnew, 21 Fla. 154. And so are coupons payable to bearer. Trustees of the I. I. Fund v. Lewis, 34 Fla. 424. In an action on a note payable absolutely, evidence is not admissible to prove an oral agreement that the maker of the note was not to pay it unless he received the amount of the note from another person. Torpey v. Tebo, 184 Mass. 307. (b) Statute applied, Sherman v. Goodwin (Ariz.), 89 Pac. Rep. 517; Geo. Alexander & Co. v. Hazelrigg (Ky.), 97 S. W. Rep. 353. Under the statute a maker indorsing the note incurs a separate and distinct liability as indorser, and may be sued as such. National Exchange Bank v. Lubrano (R. I.), 68 Atl. Rep. 944. Under the former statute in New York the indorsement of the maker was not necessary. Irving National Bank v. Alley, 79 N. Y. 536.

321. Check defined. A check is a bill of exchange drawn on a bank (a), payable on demand (b). Except as herein otherwise provided, the provisions of this act applicable to a bill of exchange payable on demand apply to a check (c).

(a) Statute applied, Wedge Mines Co. v. Denver Nat. Bank, 19 Colo. App. 182; Boswell v. Citizens' Savings Bank (Ky.), 96 S. W. Rep. 797. One of the characteristics which distinguish a check from a bill of exchange is that a check is always drawn on a bank or banker. Harris v. Clark, 3 N. Y. 93, 115; In the matter of Brown, 2 Story's Rep. 502. See also Bull v. Bank of Kasson, 123 U. S. 105; Rogers v. Durant, 140 U. S. 298; Espy v. Bank of Cincinnati, 18 Wall. 620; Merchants' Bank v. State Bank, 10 Wall. 604; Chapman v. White, 6 N. Y. 412; Harker v. Anderson, 21 Wend. 373; Murray v. Judah, 6 Cow. 484; Cruger v. Armstrong, 3 Johns. 5; Ridgeley Bank v. Patton, 109 Ill. 484; Harrison v. Nicollet Nat. Bank, 41 Minn. 489; Northwestern Coal Co. v. Bowman, 69 Iowa, 152; Planters' Bank v. Keese, 7 Heisk. 200; Blair v. Wilson, 28 Gratt. 170; Dodd v. Jette, 10 Oregon 31; Hopkinson v. Forster, L. R. 18 Eq. 74. Under the statute cashier's checks, whether certified or otherwise, are classed with bills of exchange payable on demand. Singer Mfg. Co. v. Summers, 143 N. C. 103.

(b) There has been some conflict in the decisions as to whether a draft upon a bank not payable immediately was a check or bill