Execution includes delivery.1 Delivery is essential to the validity of a negotiable instrument.2

Delivery requires the intent of the party,3 as well as the appropriate outward act.4 Surrender of the physical possession of a note without the intent that such instrument shall take effect, does not amount to delivery.5 A note, the physical possession of which has been surrendered with the understanding that it is not to take effect until the happening of some other and further event, does not take effect until such event occurs.6 If a negotiable instrument is taken from the custody of the maker, without his assent, it has no validity even in the hands of a bona fide holder in the absence of negligence on the part of the maker or circumstances creating an estoppel.7

1See Sec. 1177 et seq.

2 Handy-side v. Cameron. 21 111. 588, 74 Am. Dec. 119; Shank v. Butsch, 28 Ind. 10; Lyons v. Holmes, US. Gar. 429, 32 Am. Rep. 483.

3 Weston v. Myers, 33 111. 424.

4 Kemp v. McCormick, 1 Mont. 420.

5Bank v. Sherer, 108 Cal. 513, 41 Pac. 415.

6 Cadillac State Bank v. Cadillac Stave & Heading Co., 129 Mich. 15, 88 N. W. 67.

7 Pennington v. Baehr, 48 Cal. 565; Lexington v. Union National Bank, 75 Miss. 1,22 So. 291.

8 Brown v. Butchers' & Drovers' Bank, 6 Hill (N. Y.) 443, 41 Am. Dec. 755.

9 Turner v. Potter, 56 Ia. 251, 9 N. W. 208.

10 Bartlett v. Tucker, 104 Mass. 336, 6 Am. Rep. 240.

11 See Sec. 2312.

1 United States v. Chase National Bank, 241 Fed. 535; Holmes Bros. v. McCall, 114 Miss. 57, 74 So. 786.

2 United States. United States v. Chase National Bank, 241 Fed. 535.

Arkansas. Ard v. Bowie, 425 Ark. 169, 187 S. W. 1066.

Connecticut. Atwood v.Atwood. 86 Conn. 579, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 281, 86 Atl. 29.

Indiana. Hunter v. First National Bank, 172 Ind. 62, 87 N. E. 734.

Maine. Lally v. Terrell, 95 Me. 553, 85 Am. St. Rep. 433, 55 L. R. A. 730, 50 Atl. 896.

Mississippi. Holmes Bros. v. McCall, 114 Miss. 57, 74 So. 786.

Nebraska. Harnett v. Holdredge (Neb.), 97 N. W. 443; Russell v. Close, 83 Neb. 232, 119 N. W. 515.

North Dakota. Stockton v. Turner, 30 N. D. 641, 153 N. W. 275.

Wisconsin. Roberts v. McGrath, 38 Wis. 52. This rule is carried into the Negotiable Instruments Act. Washington Finance Corporation v. Glass, 74 Wash. 653, 46 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1043, 134 Par. 480.

See Sec. 1185 et seq. '

3 American Auto Co. v. Perkins, 83 Conn. 520, 77 Atl. 954; Mason v. Gardner, 186 Mass. 515, 71 N. F. 952; Swanke v. Herdeman, 138 Wis. 654, 120 N. W. 414.

4 Leigh v. Horsum, 4 Me. 28.

Constructive delivery, however, is recognized.8 Such delivery does not require physical transfer to the payee. Leaving a note with the father of the payee,9 or with the aunt of the payee,10 or with the sister of the payee,11 may be a sufficient delivery. In some cases delivery has been held to exist even though the maker has always kept possession of the negotiable instrument.12