Payment is presumed to be made in money unless an intent to the contrary is shown.1 In the absence of some specific agreement between the parties, a contract for the payment of money may be discharged by the payment of any money which by law is legal tender.2 The fact that money which by law is legal tender is worn, does not prevent it from being legal tender as long as it is not mutilated.3 At the same time, payment even in legal tender must be made in a reasonable manner.4 The act of a bank in redeeming its bills one at a time in dimes and half-dimes, so as to make an unreasonable delay, is a refusal to pay.5

6 St. Louis & Tennessee River Packet Co. v. McPeters, 124 Ala. 451, 27 So. 518; Commercial Bank v. Toklas, 21 Wash. 36, 56 Pac. 927.

7 See Sec. 2805 et seq.

8 See Sec. 2822.

9 See Sec. 2806 et seq.

10 American National Bank v. Miller, 229 U. S. 517, 57 L. ed. 1310; Peaslee-Gaulbert Co. v. Dixon, 172 N. Car. 411, 90 S. . 421.

111 United States. American National Bank v. Miller, 229 U. S. 517, 57 L. ed. 1310.

Georgia. Smith Roofing & Contracting Co. v. Mitchell, 117 Ga. 772, 97 Am. St. Rep. 217, 45 S. E. 47.

Iowa. Harrison v. Legore, 109 Ia. 618, 80 N. W. 670.

Minnesota. Hare v. Bailey, 73 Minn. 409, 76 N. W. 213.

New York. Oddie v. National City Bank, 45 N. Y. 735, 6 Am. Rep. 160.

North Carolina. Peaslee-Gaulbert Co. v. Dixon, 172 N. Cart 411, 90 S. E. 421.

North Dakota. Schafer v. Olson, 24 N. D. 542, 43 L. R. A. (N.S.) 762, 139 N. W. 983.

Tennessee. Howard v. Walker, 92 Tenn. 452, 21 S. W. 897; Sayles v. Cox, 95 Tenn. 579, 32 L. R. A. 715, 49 Am. St. Rep. 940, 32 S. W. 626.

"Thcre are some disadvantages of sending a check for collection directly to the bank on which it is drawn, but when such bank performs the dual function of collecting and crediting the transaction is closed and, in the absence of fraud or mutual mistake, is equivalent to payment in usual course. National Bank v. Burkhardt, 100 U. S. 686, 689." American National Bank v. Miller, 229 U. S. 517, 57 L. ed. 1310.

1 National Sewer Pipe Co. v. Smith-Jaycox Lumber Co., 183 Ia. 17, 166 N. W. 708; Fell v. H. Fell Poultry Co., 69 N. J. L. 429, 55 Atl. 236.

The act of a public utilities commission in requiring a certain number of tickets to be sold for a certain price, in order to secure a lower rate of fare than would be charged if a single cash fare were paid, is not an attempt to make anything other than money of the United States legal tender.6