96 In the following cases a check was held to operate as an assignment: Niblack v. Park Nat. Bank, 189 111. 517, 48 N. B. 438, 39 L. R. A. 159, 61 Am. St. Rep. 203; Gage Hotel Co. v. Union Nat. Bank, 171 HI. 531, 49 N. E. 420, 39 L. R. A. 479, 63 Am. St. Rep. 270; First Nat. Bank v. Keith, 183 111. 475, 56 N. E. 179; Findlay v. Corn Exchange Nat. Bank, 166 111. App. 57; Lester v. Given Jones & Co., 8 Bush, 367; Gordon v. Muchler, 34 La. Ann. 604; Wasgatt v. First Nat. Bank, 117 Minn. 9, 134 N. W. 224, 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 109; Columbia Nat. Bank v. German Nat. Bank, 56 Neb. 803, 77 N. W. 346; Southern Cabinet Co. v. First Nat Bank, 87 S. Car. 79, 68 8. E. 962; Doty v. Caldwell (Tex. Civ. App.), 38 8. W. 1025 (but see contra, House v. Kountze, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 402, 43 S. W. 561); Hulings v. Hidings Lumber Co., 38 W. Va, 361, 18 S. E. 620; Pease v. Landauer, 63 Wis. 20, 22 N. W. 847, 53 Am. Rep. 247; Dill-man v. Carlin, 105 Wis. 14, 80 N. W. 932, 76 Am. St. Rep. 902; Reamer v. National Exchange Bank, 112 Wis. 591, 88 N. W. 618, 56 L. R. A. 174, 88 Am. St. Rep. 979. In some of thee,: cases it is held or suggested that presentment to the bank makes a check an assignment though prior to such presentment it was not. This distinction is untenable. If the transaction between drawer and payee amounted to an assignment, it would be effective without notice to the bank, see infra, Sec. 434. On the other hand, if the check was not in its nature an assignment when delivered, presentment to the bank of a paper which was not an assignment could not change its nature. In Walters Nat. Bank v. Bantock, 41 Okl. 153, 137 Pac. 717, the bank had received the check and written "in escrow" upon it pending completion of the transaction to which it related. This was held an assignment.

96aMoore v. Davis, 57 Mich. 251, 255, 23 N. W. 800.

97 Wharton v. Walker, 4 B. & C. 163; Yates v. Bell, 3 B. & Al. 643; Schroder v. Central Bank, 34 L. T. Rep. 735; Bank of Republic v. Millard, 10 Wall. 152, 19 L. Ed. 897; First Nat. Bank v. Whitman, 94 U. S. 343, 24 L. Ed. 229; Bien v. Robinson, 208 U. S. 423, 28 S. Ct. 379, 52 L. Ed. 556; Poland v. Love, 164 Fed. 186, 91 C. C. A. 466; this view has found expression in the Uniform Negotiable Instruments Law 98

It is not always easy to determine whether an order directing the payment of a sum of money requests payment in any event or merely the discharge or partial discharge of a particular claim. It has for centuries been settled law that a bill of exchange is not rendered non-negotiable by the fact that payment according to the terms of the bill is to be charged to a certain account, or that the drawee is to reimburse himself in a particular way.99 This is so provided in the Uniform Negotiable

Donohoe-Kelly Banking Co. P. Southern Pac. Co., 138 Cal. 183, 71 Pao. 93, M Am. St. Rep. 28; Le Breton v. Stanley Contracting Co., 15 Cal. App. 429, 114 Pac. 1028; John M. C. Marble Co. v. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 15 Cal. App. 347, 115 Pac. 59; Colorado Nat. Bank v. Boetteher, 5 Col. 185, 40 Am. Rep. 142; Reviere p. Chamblias, 120 Ga. 714, 48 S. E. 122; Harrison, Receiver, v. Wright, 100 Ind. 516; Clark p. Toronto Bank, 72 Kaon. 1, 82 Pac. 582; Moses v. Franklin Bank, 34 Md. 574; Bullard p. Randall, 1 Gray, 805, 61 Am. Dec. 433; Carr p. Natl. Security Bank, 107 Mass. 45, 9 Am. Rep. 6; Second Banko. Williams, 13 Mich. 282; Mclntyre v. Farmers', etc., Bank, 115 Mich. 255, 73 N. W. 233; Creveling v. Bloomsbury Nat. Bank, 46 N. J. L. 256, 50 Am. Rep. 417; Duncan p. Berlin, 60 N. Y. 151; Risky v. Phoenix Bank, 83 N. Y. 318, 28 Am. Rep. 421, affd., 111 U. S. 126, 4 S. Ct. 322, 28 L. Ed. 374; Chaffee vv. Bank, 40 Oh. St. 1; First Nat. Bank v. Gish, 72 Pa. 13; First Nat. Bank of Northumberland v. McMichffil, 106 Pa. 460; Imboden p. Perrie ft Wife, 13 Lea, 504; Central Bank v. Davis (Tex. Civ. App.), 149 S. W. 290.

98Section 189. "A check of itself does not operate as an assignment of any part of the funds to the credit of the drawer with the bank, and the bank is not liable to the holder, unless and until it accepts or certifies the check."

Infra, Sec. 1209. For decisions under this section, see Kaeserneyer p. Smith, 22 Idaho, 1, 123 Pac. 943; Boswell v. Citizens' Savings Bank, 123 Ky. 485, 96 S. W. 797; First Nat. Bank p. Hargis etc Bank, 170 Ky. 690,186 S. W. 471; Allen v. Puritan Trust Co., 211 Mass. 409, 97 N. E. 916; Lonier p. State Savings Bank, 149 Mich. 483, 112 N. W. 1119; Superior Nat. Bank v. National Bank of Commerce, 99 Neb. 833, 157 N. W. 1023; Meuer p. Phenix Nat. Bank, 94 N. Y. App. Div. 331, 88 N. Y. S. 83; Schlesinger p. Kuzrok, 47 Misc. 634, 94 N. Y. S. 442; Anglo-South American Bank p. National City Bank, 146 N. Y. S. 457,161 N. Y. App. Div. 268. But see Hove p. Stanhope State Bank, 138 Ia. 39, 115 N. W. 476; Findlay v. Corn Exchange Bank, 166 111. App. 57. Also see the argument in 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 86 n. that the Negotiable Instruments Law deprives the payee of a check of only one incident of an assignment - the right to maintain a direct action against the bank. In view of the words of Sec. 189, the argument seems untenable.

99 Macleed v. Snee, 2 Strange, 762; Pierson v. Dunlop, Cowp. 571; Griffin v. Weatherby, L. R. 3 Q. B. 753; Banner p. Johnston, LR.5H. L. 187; In re Boice, 33 Ch. D. 612; Defee . Smith, 43 Ark. 221; Redman p. Adams, 51 Me. 429; Whitney p. Eliot Natl. Bank, 137 Mass. 351,50 Am. Rep. 316; Schmittler v. Simon, 101 N. Y. 554,

Instruments Law.1 These authorities necessarily involve the conclusion that such an order is general and directs payment unconditionally irrespective of the existence or of the sufficiency of the fund referred to. If these decisions are sound, there seems little reason why the same construction should not be applied to non-negotiable orders of the same sort. The New York Court of Appeals so applied it in one case.2 But this case seems to have been overruled; 3 and in spite of the cases involving the negotiability of an instrument payable to order it is perhaps generally a more accurate interpretation of the intention of the drawer in such cases to suppose either that the payment was intended to be conditional on the existence of the indebtedness referred to, or that that indebtedness was intended to be security for the payment of the order. In each case whether the instrument in terms is or is not payable to order or bearer the essential question is whether a fund is referred to as merely a possible source of reimbursement for the drawee or whether the order is to be paid only from the fund.