At the law-merchant, a negotiable instrument embodied the debt in a way in which the ordinary written contract did not. Accordingly, even in the absence of statute, it was held that if the holder of a stress on the fact that the creditor accepted the negotiable instrument of a third person.)

13 Schlessinger v. Schlessinger, 39 Colo. 44, 8 L. R. A. (N.S.) 863, 88 Pac. 970; Specialty Glass Co. v. Daley, 172 Mass. 460, 52 N. E. 633.

1 Leeson v. Anderson, 99 Mich. 247, 41 Am. St. Rep. 597,58 N. W. 72.

2 Stewart v. Riley, 189 Ala. 519, 66 So. 488; Fuller v. Kemp, 138 N. Y. 231, 20 L. R. A. 785, 33 N. E. 1034; Nixon v. Kiddy, 66 W. Va. 355, 66 S. E. 500.

3 Wells v. Morrison, 91 Ind. 51; American Seeding Machine Co. v. Baker, 55 Ind. App. 625, 104 N. E. 524.

4Goddard v. O'Brien, 9 Q. B. D. 37; Wells v. Morrison, 91 Ind. 51. 5 Goddard v. O'Brien, 9 Q. B. D. 37.

Under the Negotiable Instruments Law,8 a negotiable instrument is discharged "when the principal debtor becomes the holder of the instrument at or after maturity in his own right." Under such a statute the transfer of a negotiable instrument to the principal debtor, so that he becomes the holder thereof in his own right, discharges the obligation, even though such transfer is made for a part of the amount actually due,9 or without consideration.10

1 Alabama. Brown v. Lowndes County, - Ala. - , 78 So. 815.

Iowa. Murray v. Snow, 37 la. 410 (also an agreement between creditors to accept less than the amount of the debt in full settlement).

Massachusetts. Hale v. Rice, 124 Mass. 292.

Minnesota. Stewart v. Hidden, 13 Minn. 43.

Mississippi. Clayton v. Clark, 74 Miss. 499, 60 Am. St. Rep. 521, 37 L. R. A. 771, 21 So. 565, 22 So. 189.

Vermont Draper v. Hitt, 43 Vt. 439, 5 Am. Rep. 292.

2 District of Columbia v. Cornell, 130 U. S. 655, 32 L. ed. 1041; Silvers v. Reynolds, 17 N. J. L. 275.

3 Brown v. Lowndes County, - Ala. - , 78 So. 815; McGiverin v. Keefe, 130 la. 97, 106 N. W. 369; Silvers v. Reynolds, 17 N. J. L. 275.

4Templeton v. Butler, 117 Wis. 455, 94 N. W. 306.

5 Templeton v. Butler, 117 Wis. 455, 94 N. W. 306.

6 Greenbaum v. Elliott, 60 Mo. 25.

7Wittman v. Pickens, 33 Colo. 484, 81 Pac. 299.

8 See Sec. 126 of the Negotiable Instruments Law.

9 Sigler v. Sigler, 98 Kan. 524, L. R. A. 1917A, 725, 158 Pac. 864. (In this case, however, the debt was in the form of a negotiable instrument which was surrendered by the holder to the maker for value, with the intent on the part of the holder to transfer all his interest therein. It was controlled by Sec. 126 of the Negotiable Instruments Law; but even without such statute a surrender of the note by the holder to the maker would operate as a discharge, according to the weight of authority, without any consideration.)

See Sec. 601.

to Estate of Gilbert, 167 Wis. 291, 166 N. W. 442.