The contract must be either a promise to pay or an order commanding another to pay.1 The former is a promissory note or bond; the latter a bill of exchange 2 or check. A promise by A to B to accept an order from C, with C's name indorsed thereon, is not a bill of exchange, the order not having been drawn.3 Accordingly a mere acknowledgment of a debt,4 such as an I. 0. U.,5 or a due-bill,6 or a time check for labor,7 is held in some jurisdictions not to be negotiable.

The difficulty and cause of disagreement among the courts is to determine when such an instrument amounts to a promise to pay. If a receipt contains an express promise to repay it may be a promissory note, as a receipt containing the words, "Which we promise to replace * * * on demand."8 If a receipt provides for repayment, it is a promissory note, though it contains no express promise to pay.9 Thus the words "payable,"10 or "to be paid,"11 or "on demand,"12 make the instrument in which they are contained a note instead of a mere receipt. So a statement of time at which the debt is due,13 as "due * * * on demand,",14 may import a promise. Some authorities, however, go farther and treat all due-bills as promissory notes, on the theory that they contain an implied promise to pay.15 An acknowledgment of a debt evidenced by a lost note and a renewal of such note is in effect a promise to pay such debt, and may itself be negotiable.16

1 Massachusetts. Torpey v. Tebo, 184 Mass. 307, 68 N. E. 223.

Montana. First National Bank v. Barrett, 52 Mont. 359, 157 Pac. 951.

Oklahoma. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. McCoy & Spivey Bros., 32 Okla. 277, 40 L. R. A. (N.S.) 177, 122 Pac. 125. .

Vermont. Hitchcock v. Cloutier, 7 Vt. 22.

West Virginia. Hubbard & Co. v. Morton, 80 W. Va. 137, 92 S. E. 252.

2Hubbard & Co. v. Morton (W. Va.), 92 S. E. 252.

3 Allen v. Leavens, 26 Or. 164, 46 Am. St. Rep. 615, 26 L. R. A. 620, 37 Pac. 488.

4 Arkansas. Morgan v. Center, 133 Ark. 247, 202 S. W. 235.

Connecticut. Currier v. Lock wood, 40 Conn. 349, 16 Am. Rep. 40.

Massachusetts. Gay v. Rbake, 151 Mass. 115, 21 Am. St. Rep. 434, 7 L. R. A. 392, 23 N. E. 835.

Pennsylvania. Brentzer v. Wight-man, 7 W. & S. (Pa.) 264.

Washington. National Market Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 100 Wash. 370, 174 Pac. 479.

5 Gay v. Roake, 151 Mass. 115, 21 Am. St. Rep. 434, 7 L. R. A. 392, 23 N. E. 835.

6 Morgan v. Center, 133 Ark. 247, 202 S. W. 235. Such instrument is actionable. Merchants' National Bank v. Carmichael, - Cal. - , 173 Pac. 999.

7 National Market Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 100 Wash. 370, 174 Pac. 479.

8 Moore v. Gano, 12 Ohio 300.

9 Johnson v. Blackmon, - Ala. - , 78 So. 891; Messmore v. Morrison, 172 Pa. St. 300, 34 Atl. 45; Easley v. East Tennessee National Bank, 138 Tenn. 369, 198 S. W. 66.

10 Johnson v. Blackmon, - Ala. - , 78 So. 891; Johnson School Township v. Bank, 81 Ind. 515; Kimball v. Huntington, 10 Wend. (N. Y.) 675, 25 Am Dec. 590; Easley v. East Tennessee National Bank, 138 Tenn. 369, 198 S. W. 66.

11 Ubsdell v. Cunningham, 22 Mo. 124.

12 Cummings v. Gassett, 19 Vt. 308.