is a good instrument, but the following example New York, August 31, 1900. Pay C. or order $100.00. To Wm. Smith, or Richard Roe, or JOHN DOE. is not good. The reason is, that each might say that the other must pay, and confusion arises. For exactly the same reason there should be no alternative allowed in naming the payees. Statutes are not always consistent. When a draft may be treated as a promissory note. Where the drawer and drawee are the same person, or where the drawee is a fictitious person, or is a person not having capacity to contract, i.e., an infant, lunatic, etc., the holder may treat the instrument, at his option, either as a draft or a promissory note. (Sec. 214.) So, too, where the instrument is so worded that you are in doubt whether it is a draft or note, you may treat it as either, at your option. (Sec. 36, Sub. 5.) value to the business man. This is of little Its importance would only be shown when an action was brought on the instrument. Value received. These words amount to nothing in either a note or a draft. Sub. 2.) (Sec. 25, Seal. The validity of a negotiable instrument is not affected, whether it bears a seal or not. Corporations usually affix their seal, but it is not necessary. (Sec. 25, Sub. 4.) Place. It is not necessarily fatal to neglect to specify the place where the instrument is drawn, or the place where it is payable. It is always better to add both-the later especiallywhen payable in large cities; but both may be omitted, and the instrument still be good. (Sec. 25, Sub. 3.) Immediate and remote parties. To understand more clearly what is to follow, the distinction between immediate and remote parties should be borne in mind. Immediate parties are those who participate in a single transaction. For instance, a note may be negotiated several times, i.e., A. gives it to B., B. gives it to C., C. gives it to D., and so on. Each negotiation is a single transaction, and the parties immediately interested, as A. and B., B. and C.. C. and D., are immediate parties; while those who participate in different transactions are remote parties, as A. and C., B. and D., etc. So, the maker and payee of a note, the drawer and acceptor (drawee) of a draft, the drawer and payee, the indorser and his immediate indorsee, are all immediate parties; while the indorsee and maker of a note, or the indorsee and one who is not his immediate indorser, are remote parties. The rights of immediate and remote parties differ, as we shall see; and their distinction is important. PART III CONSIDERATION; INDORSEMENT Consideration. Consideration is peculiarly a common law doctrine. Under this law, a promise made without consideration is invalid, it being necessary to aver and prove consideration in order to establish any contract. This theory of consideration was unknown to the merchants, who brought from the continent the customs of negotiability and grace. With them the possession of the instrument was conclusive, and no consideration was necessary. The English courts did not agree with this, preferring their own common law theory above stated. Finally the English law gave way in part to usage and custom, and the law became settled that bills of exchange and promissory notes are regarded prima facie as given for consideration. In the language of the statute: Every negotiable instrument is deemed prima facie to have been issued for a valid consideration. (Sec. 50.) In other words, the burden of proving lack of consideration is on the person obligated. It is sufficient for the holder in the first instance to prove the paper-i.e., simply put the instrument in evidence; and this will be sufficient unless the defendant denies consideration; and if he does, he (the defendant) must then go forward with his evidence to establish the absence of consideration. This having been done, the plaintiff (payee or holder) must then proceed to rebut this by putting in evidence that he parted with consideration for the instrument. Consideration defined. Consideration is something furnished to the promisor in exchange for his promise. It is that which the promisor has asked in exchange for his promise. In the law of negotiable instruments, any consideration sufficient to support a simple contract is valid. (Sec. 51.) A valid consideration is necessary to support any contract, and the rule applies with equal force in the law of negotiable instruments, when the question of consideration is open to inquiry. But consideration does not necessarily mean money paid. Advances made, credit given, work and labor done, dismissal of any suit pending, release of right of dower, a compromise of a supposed cause of action, marriage, and promise to marry, professional and other services rendered, the "good-will" of a business, a promise to the promisor in exchange for his promise-all these and many other things constitute valid consideration. "In short, consideration is something furnished to the promisor in exchange for his promise. It must be something which the law can recognize as having some value, however slight; and may be something actually given to the promisor, or it may be the doing or the refraining from doing something by the promisee.”—Ashley on Contracts, p. 69. Negotiable instruments presume a consideration. As stated above, drafts or bills of exchange and promissory notes which are regular in form, carry with them presumption of consideration; and in the first instance, it is unnecessary for the plaintiff (the payee or holder) either to aver (formally assert) or prove a consideration. Yet when evidence has been introduced by the defendant (be he drawer, maker, indorser, or acceptor) denying the presumption, the plaintiff must give eyidence that he gave consideration. And this is true, even though the words "value received" be included in the instrument. The words value received" are generally expressed in a note, but they are not essential to either a note or bill. (Sec. 25, Sub. 2.) In a note, they tend to show value received by the maker from the payee; in a bill, they are somewhat ambiguous, as they may mean either value received by the acceptor from the drawer, or by the drawer from the payee. According to the best authorities, these words have no effect. 66 Instruments in hands of third parties. When the instrument passes into the hands of a third party, the defendant (provided he is not the immediate indorser) must show not only lack of the original consideration, but he must also show lack of consideration between the |