In the absence of specific statutory provisions, an instrument otherwise negotiable was not rendered non-negotiable by the fact that it did not fix the place at which it was payable.1 In some states, by special statutory provision, it was necessary that an instrument, to be negotiable, should show on its face the place at which it was payable;2 and under some statutes, in order to be negotiable, it must be payable at a bank.3

8State Bank v. Bilatad (Ia.), 136 N. W. 204 [overruling on this point, State National Bank v. Carter, 144 Ia. 715, 123 N. W. 237].

9 Miller v. Poage, 56 la. 96, 41 Am. Rep. 82, 8 N. W. 799.

Contra, Capron v. Capron, 44 Vt. 410.

10 Indiana. Oyler v. McMurray, 7 Ind. App. 645, 34 N. E. 1004; Merchants', etc., Bank v. Fraze, 9 Ind. App. 161, 53 Am. St. Rep. 341, 36 N. E. 378; Rosenthal v. Rambo, 28 Ind. App. 265, 62 N. E. 637; Matchett v. Machine Works, 29 Ind. App. 207, 94 Am. St. Rep. 272, 64 N. E. 229; Glid-den v. Henry, 104 Ind. 278, 54 Am. Rep. 316, 1 N. E. 369.

Iowa. Woodbury v. Roberts, 59 Ia. 348, 44 Am. Rep. 685, 13 N. W. 312; Cedar Rapids National Bank v. Weber, 180 Ia. 966, L. R. A. 1918A, 432, 164 N. W. 233; Quinn v. Bane, 182 Ia. 843, 164 N. W. 788; Manhard v. First National Bank, - Ia. - , 165 N. W. 185.

Kansas. Rossville State Bank v. Heslet, 84 Kan. 315, 33 L. R. A. (N.S.) 738, 113 Pac. 1052.

Michigan. Second National Bank v. Wheeler, 75 Mich. 546, 42 N. W. 963.

Pennsylvania. Citizens' National Bank v. Piollet, 126 Pa. St. 194, 12 Am. St. Rep. 860, 4 L. R. A. 190, 17 Atl. 603.

Contra, Witty v. Ins. Co., 123 Ind. 411, 18 Am. St. Rep. 327, 8 L. R. A. 365, 24 N. E. 141.

11 Quinn v. Bane, 182 la. 843, 164 N. W. 788; Manhard v. First National Bank, - Ia. - , 165 N. W. 185.

12 McClelland v. R. R., 110 N. Y. 469, 6 Am. St. Rep. 397, 1 L. R. A. 299, 18 N. E. 237.

1 Kendall v. Galvin, 15 Me. 131, 32 Am. Dec. 141; Woodworth v. Bank of America, 19 Johns. (N. Y.) 391, 10 Am. Dec. 239.

2 Oates v. First National Bank, 100 U. S. 239, 25 L. ed. 580 (decided under Alabama statute); Holloway v. Dar-den, 168 Ala. 256, 53 S. W. 187.

3 Ray v. Baker, 165 Ind. 74, 74 N. E. 619; Millikan v. Security Trust Co., - Ind. - , 118 N. E. 568; Louisville Banking Co. v. Buchanan, 107 Ky. 125, 52 S. W. 967; Corbin v. Planters'

Where the Negotiable Instruments Law is in force, the provisions of such statutes which define the elements of a negotiable instrument, are intended to be exclusive in their operation and to produce uniformity; and accordingly they repeal local statutes which required as an additional element of negotiability that such instrument should be made payable at a bank.4 The Negotiable Instruments Law further provides specifically that the negotiable character of an instrument is not affected by the fact that it does not specify the place where it is payable.5

A provision by which a definite place of payment is fixed,8 as at a certain bank,7 does not render the instrument non-negotiable.