As before stated, checks in the ordinary form payable upon demand are not bills of exchange,1 nor are orders payable out of a particular fund,2 even though they have been accepted;3

8Minturn v. Fisher, 4 Cat. 35; Cutler v. Reynolds, 64 I11. 321; Georgia Nat. Bank v. Henderson, 46 Ga. 487; Harrison v. Nicollet Nat. Bank. 41 Minn. 488; Ivory v. State Bank, 36 Mo. 475; Brown v. Lusk, 4 Yerg. 210. Compare Andrew v. Blachly, 11 Ohio St. 89; Morrison v. Bailey, 5 Ohio St. 13. Contra are the first three cases in note 2, supra.

9 Bank of Washington v. Triplett, 1 Pet. 25; Townsley v. Sumrall, 2 Pet 170; Oxford Bank v. Davis, 4 Cush. 188; Taylor v. Bank of Illinois, 7 T. B. Mon. 576.

10 See cases last cited, and Austin v. Rodman, 8 N. C. 194; Commercial Bank v. Perry, 10 Rob. (La.) 61. Must be presented for acceptance if one-day bill. Craig v. Price, 23 Ark. 633.

11 Hart v. Smith, 15 Ala. 807; Commercial Bank v. Perry, supra. Contra, Forrest v. Rawlings, 35 Tex. 626, semble. The rule that the sight bill should be presented is correct, because it is entitled to days of grace, and acceptance or presentment therefor determines the day from which the days of grace begin.

1 See note 6 to preceding section.

2 Virginia v. Turner, 1 Cranch, C. C. 261; Gillilan v. Myers, 31 111. 525; Kelly v. Bronson, 26 Minn. 359; Owen v. Lavine, 14 Ark. 389; Agnel v. Ellis, 1 McGloin, 57; Mills v. Kuy-kendall, 2 Blackf. 47; Lanfear v. Blossom, 1 La. Ann. 148; Harriman v. Sanborn, 43 N. H. 128; Ehrichs nor are orders payable upon a contingency,4 even though the contingency has ceased to be a contingency by the happening of an event, and even though the bill has been accepted.5 But the mention in the bill of a particular fund which the drawee may use to reimburse himself,6 or the mention in the bill of the consideration for it or of the account to which the bill is to be applied,7 does not affect the character of the instrument as a bill of exchange, if it is otherwise a good bill,8 the sole requisite being, if the formal requisites appear, that the bill be issued on the personal credit of the drawer. Municipal orders or warrants for the payment of money are not bills of exchange;9 they are merely evidences of indebtedness of the municipal organization.10 Some courts have denied to them the qualities of commercial paper,11 but the better rule is that they are nev. De Mill, 75 N. Y. 370; Lindsay v. Price. 33 Tex. 280; Van Vacter v. Flack, 1 Smedes & M. 393. Reeside v. Knox, 2 Wheat. 253, applies this rule to an order upon a government officer for moneys due from the government.

3 Owen v. Lavine, 14 Ark. 389; Agnel v. Ellis, 1 McGloin, 57.

4 Miller v. Excelsior Stone Co., 1 Bradw. 273; Raignel v. Ayliff, 16 Ark. 594; Kingbury v. Wall, 68 111. 311.

5 Cook v. Satterlee, 6 Cow. 108 (contingency and accepted); Miller v. Excelsior Stone Co., 1 Bradw. 273 (contingency had happened).

6 Early v. McCart, 2 Dana, 414; Redman v. Adams, 51 Me. 429; Wells v. Brigham, 6 Cush. 6; Cour-sen v. Leadlie, 31 Pa. 506; Corbett v. Clark, 45 Wis. 403; Adams v. Boyd, 33 Ark. 33; Spurgin v. McPheeters, 42 Ind. 527.

7 Lowery v. Steward, 3 Bosw. 505, 25 N. Y. 239; Hillstrom v. Anderson, 46 Minn. 382.

8 That is to say, if it contains the formal elements of a good bilL The cases in the last two notes make this matter plain.

9Bayerque v. City of San Francisco, Fed. Cas. No. 1137 (city warrant); Dana v. City of San Francisco, 19 Cal. 486 (city wan-ant); Koch v. Branch, 44 Mo. 542 (United States commissary warrant); Warner v. Commonwealth, 1 Pa. 154 (county warrant); Jerome v. County Commissioners, 18 Fed. R, 873 (county warrant); Boardman v. Hayne, 29 Iowa, 339 (school order); Matthis v. Town of Cameron, 62 Ma 504; First Nat. Bank v. Rush School Dist, 32 P. F. Smith, 307.

10 Floyd County Comm'rs v. Day, 19 Ind. 450; Brownlee v. Madison Co. Comm'rs, 81 Ind. 186 (county order refunding taxes); Carnegie v. Beattyville Trustees, 13 Ky. Law R. 431; Clark v. City of Des Moines, 19 Iowa, 199; Bull v. Simms, 23 N. Y. 570; Read v. City of Buffalo, 67 Barb. 526

11 Jerome v. County Comm'rs, 18 Fed. R 873; Boardman v. Hayne, gotiable so as to enable the transferee to sue in his own name at law if they are made so by their terras.12