15 So. 444; Caahman v. Harrison, 90 Cal. 297, 27 Pac. 283; Meldrum c. Henderson, 7 Colo. App. 256, 43 Pac 148; Windsor Cement Co. v. Thompson, 86 Conn. 511, 86 Atl. 1; Talladega. Mercantile Co. v. Robinson, etc., Co., 96 Ga. 815, 22 S. E. 1003; Hall v. Flanders, 83 Me. 242, 22 Atl. 158; Exchange Bank v. Sutton Bank, 78 Md. 577, 585, 28 Atl. 563, 23 L. R. A. 173; Holbrook c Payne, 151 Man. 388, 24 N. E. 210, 21 Am. St. Rep. 456; Sunderlin v. Mecosta County Savings Bank, 116 Mich. 281,74 N. W. 478; Bush v. Foote, 58 Miss. 5, 38 Am. Rep. 310; Bank of Commerce v. Bogy, 44 Mo. 13, 100 Am. Dec. 247; Jones v. Pacific Wood, etc., Co., 13 Nev. 359, 29 Am. Rep. 308; Bradley-Currier Co. v. Bernz, 55 N. J. Eq. 10, 35 Atl. 832; Schmittler v. Simon, 101 N. Y. 554, 5 N. E. 452, 54 Am. Rep. 737; Muller v. Kling, 149 N. Y. App. Div. 170,133 N. Y. S. 614; Marriner v. John L. Roper Lumber Co., 113 N. C. 52,18 8. E. 94 (but see Howell v. Boyd Mfg. Co., 116 N. C. 806, 22 S. E. 6); First Nat. Bank v. School District, 31 Okl. 139,129 Pac. 614,39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 655; Commonwealth v. American L. I. Ins. Co., 162 Pa. 586, 29 Atl. 660, 42 Am. St. Rep. 844; Harris County v. Campbell, 68 Tex. 22, 3 S. W. 243, 2 Am. St. Rep. 467; First Mat. Bank v. Texas Moline Plow Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 168 S. W. 420; Gardner v. Moore's Adm., 122 Vs.. 10; 94 S. E. 162. In Sheets v. Coast Coal Co., 74 Wash. 327, 133 Pac. 433, the principle was stated, and applied, but the order being to pay "from my monthly pay," the holding of the court that the order was a bill of exchange was erroneous. See also Commercial Nat. Bank v. Portland, 37 Or. 33, 54 Pac. 814, 60 Pac. 563. But see contra, Roberta v. Corbin, 26

Ia. 315, 96 Am. Dec. 146; DeLaval Separator Co. v. Sharplees, 134 Ia. 28, 111 N. W. 438; Columbia Nat. Bank v. German Nat. Bank, 56 Neb. 803, 77 N. W. 346; Conway v. Cutting, 51 N. H. 407; Pollard v. Pollard, 68 N. H. 359, 39 Atl. 329; Howell v. Boyd Mfg. Co., 116 N. C. 806, 22 S. W. 5. Cf. McDaniel v. Maxwell, 21 Oreg. 202, 27 Pac. 952, 28 Am. St. Rep. 740; Skobis v. Ferge, 102 Wis. 122, 78 N. W. 426; Dillman v. Carlin, 105 Wis. 14, 80 N. W. 932, 76 Am. St. Rep. 902.

92Israel v. Douglas, 1 H. Bl. 239, 242; Yeates v. Groves, 1 Ves- Jr. 280; Burn v. Carvalho, 4 Mylne & C. 690; Percival v. Dunn, 29 Ch. D. 128; Durham v. Robertson, 11898} 1 Q. 1). 765; Christmas v. Russell, 14 Wall. 69, 84, 20 L. Ed. 762; In re Hanna, 105 Fed. 687 (partial); United States v. Ferguson, 78 Fed. 103, 24 C. C. A. 1; The Elmbank, 72 Fed. 610 (partial); Third Nat. Bank v. Atlantic City, 130 Fed. 751, 66 C. C. A. 177; Curtis v. Walpole Tire & Rubber Co., 218 Fed. 145, 134 C. C. A. 140; Carroll a. Kelly, 111 Ala. 661, 20 So. 456; Samatag v. Orr, 101 Ark. 582, 142 8. W. 1127; Wheatley n. Strobe, 12 Cal. 92, 73 Am. Dec, 522; Goldman v. Murray, 164 Cal. 419, 129 Pac. 462; Puterbaugh v. McCray, 25 Cal. App. 469, 144 Pac. 149; Central Nat. Bank v. Spratlen, 7 Col. App. 430, 43 Pac 1048 (partial); Walton v. Horkan, 112 Ga. 814, 38 S. E. 105; Lawson it. Lyon, 136 Ga. 214, 71 S. E. 149 (partial); Brown v. Southern R. Co., 140 Ga. 639,79 S. E. 152; Young v. Jones, 180, 111. 216 54 N. E. 235 (partial); Metcalf o. Kincaid, 87 Ia. 443, 54 N. W. 867, 43 Am. St. Rep. 391; Fairbanks v. Tafel, 159 Ky. 602, 167 S. W. 887; Philadelphia, etc., Lumber Co. p. Garrison, 160 Kj. 329, 109 S. W. 714; Harlow v. Bartlett, 96 Me. 294, 52 Atl.

638, 90 Am. St. Rep. 346; Jenneas v. Wharff, 87 Me. 307, 32 Atl 90S; Hartley v. Tapley, 2 Gray, 565; Andrews Electric Co. p. St. Alphonse, etc., Soc. (Mass.), 123 N. E. 103 (partial); Bush v. Footc, 68 Miss. 5, 38 Am. Rep. 310; White p. Femald-Woodward Co., 78 N. H. 83, 79 Atl. 641; Bradley Currier Co. v. Berne, 55 N. J. Eq. 10, 35 Atl. 832, Morton c. Naylor, 1 Hill, 583; Brill p. Tuttle, 81 N. Y. 454, 37 Am. Rep. S15 (partial); Crouch p. Muller, 141 N. Y. 495, 36 N. E. 394 (partial); Bobbins p. Klein, 60 Oh. St 199, 54 N. E. 91 (partial); Gillette p. Murphy, 7 Okla. 91, 54 Pac 413; Willard v. Bullen, 41 Or. 25, 67 Pac 924 (partial); Bank v. Rhea County (Tenn. Ch.), 59 S. W. 442 (partial); A. A. Fielder Lumber Co. v. Smith (Tex. Civ. App.), 151 S. W. 605; Youngberg v. El Paso Brick Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 155 S. W. 715 (partial); Johnson v. Belanger, 85 Vt. 249, 81 Atl. 621; Chesapeake Building Ass. v. Coleman, 94 Va. 433, 26 S. E. 843; Hawes v. Wm. R. Trigg, 110 Va. 165, 65 S. E. 538; Dickerson v. Spokane, 28 Wash. 292, 66 Pac. 381, 35 Wash.

414, 77 Pac. 730 (partial) (cf. Nelson v. Nelson Bennett Co., 31 Wash. 116, 71 Pac. 749); Bank v. Gibson, 21 Ont. 613; Quick p. Colchester South, 30 Out. 645 (partial). See as to the similar effect of an order for delivery of goods, Horowits v, David, 145 N. Y. S. 998.

But the rule of the Federal Court is said to be otherwise in regard to an order for only part of a specific fund. Bosworth v. Jacksonville Nat. Bank, 64 Fed. 615, 12 C. C. A. 331, 24 U. S. App. 413; Sheats v. Markley, 249 Fed. 315,161 C. C. A. 323; Schmitt p. Shad-rach, 251 Fed. 874, 164 C. C. A. 90; Andrews v. Frieraon, 134 Ala. 626, 33 So. 6.

93 Such a power of attorney amounts to an assignment. Porter p. Hanson, 36 Ark. 591; Cobb v. Champlin, 33 Miss. 406; Keys' Estate, 137 Pa. 565, 20 Atl. 710, 21 Am. St. Rep. 896. Cf. Hall v. Jackson, 20 Pick. 194.

94 O'Conncll v. Worcester, 225 Mem. 159, 114 N. E. 201.

94Ex parte Hall 10 Ch. D. 615; White p. Coleman, 130 Mass. 316. See also Loughlin p. Larson, 27 S. Dak. 376, 131 N. W. 304.

representation that the drawee has funds with which to pay the check and is bound to do so. It may be urged, therefore, that a check is an order to pay a specific claim or part of it.96 The argument assumes, what is indeed sometimes stated, that the reason why a bill of exchange does not operate as an assignment is because "the purchaser of a draft is supposed to take it in reliance upon the responsibility of the drawer and he has no other reliance until it is accepted." 96a The answer to this argument, however, is that a check like any bill of exchange is an order to the drawee to pay the sum ordered irrespective of the condition of the drawer's account, and that this is the true reason why a bill of exchange is not an assignment. The drawer commits a fraud by drawing without funds to meet his check, but none the less he orders the bank to pay. Accordingly the prevailing view is that a check is not an assignment.97 And