Certain forms of bills of exchange are considered as accepted by the form of them. Thus, a bill by one partner upon his firm drawn in regard to a partnership transaction is the accepted bill of the firm.1 The reasons for so holding are obvious. The bill of an agent upon his principal, where the agent is authorized to draw, or where the principal receives the money or thing of value upon the bill, is an accepted bill or, what amounts to the same thing, a promissory note of the principal,2 and the same rule would apply to orders of the principal upon his agent.3 The drafts of officers of corporations upon the corporation or upon another officer of the corporation are merely one phase of the rule as to principal and agent,4 and therefore such bills or drafts or orders do not require acceptance.5 They may be considered either promissory notes or accepted bills; the sole question is upon the authority of the agent.6 But it has been said that such bills may be considered as ordinary bills of exchange,7 and the reasonable rule would be that the holder could consider the instrument either a bill of exchange or a promissory note, at his option, where it is capable of two constructions.8 Such bills, from another standpoint, may be considered as a species of bill drawn by the drawer upon himself. All bills drawn by the drawer upon himself are promissory notes of the drawer9 or accepted bills,10 both phrases meaning in that connection the same thing. But where the drawer of the,bill and the payee are the same person, the document, when indorsed, is a bill of exchange;11 but another court says the document is a promissory note,12 especially if signed across its face by the drawer or indorsed by the drawer.13 A bill drawn with the drawer's name omitted is either the accepted bill or the promissory note of the drawer;14 but if the bill is accepted by rous v. Halbrook, 39 Tex. 572. If it be unsigned, but accepted, it maybe shown to be a bill by proper averments. Bliss v. Burnes, Mc-Cahon, 91. An order which has no drawee, and is payable to bearer, is good only in the hands of a bona fide holder. Ball v. Allen, 15 Mass. 433. As to checks, see Ellis v. Wheeler, 3 Pick. 18.

29 Iowa, 339; Matthis v. Town of Cameron, 62 Mo. 504; First Nat. Bank v. Rush School Disk, 32 P. F. Smith, 307.

12 Varner v. Nobleborough, 2 Me. 121. But they cannot be negotiable in the sense that the assignee takes free from the defense of want of power.

1 Dougal v. Cowles, 5 Day, 511.

2Burnheisel v. Field, 17 Ind. 609; Clark v. Lake Ave. Ass'n, 20 N. Y. Supp. 363, hold they are accepted bills. But it is said they are not promissory notes which pass by indorsement free of equities. Ashland Banking Co. V. Centralia Mut. Ass'n, 1 Kulp, 38; but the case is wrong. The defense by the corporation was ultra vires, but it was estopped because it had received full value. They are promissory notes. Indiana R. Co. v. Davis, 20 Ind. 6; Maux Ferry Co. v. Branegan, 40 Ind. 361; Hasey v. White Pigeon Co., 1 Doug. 193; Western Mfg. Co. v. Toole, 11 Pac. R. (Ariz.) 119; and tbese last cases say they are also bills accepted. The following cases hold them to be bills of exchange: Kaskaskia Bridge Co. v. Shannon, 6 I11. 15 (a demand on the drawee is necessary, but no notice of dishonor is required); Wetumpka R Co. v. Bingham, 5 Ala. 657 (a demand on the drawee and notice of dishonor are both necessary).

3 They are promissory notes. Hardy v. Pilcher, 57 Miss. 18; Poy-dras v. Delamere, 13 La. 98.

4 Hazard v. Cole, 1 Idaho, 276. And see cases in note 2, supra.

5 Baker v. Montgomery, 4 Mart. (O. S.) 90; Western Mining Co. v.' Toole, 11 Pac. R. 119; Rio Grande Ex. Co. v. Coby, 7 Colo. 299; Fair-child v. Ogdensburgh Co., 15 N. Y. 337; Mob'ey v. Clark, 28 Barb. 390;

McCormick v. Hickey, 24 Mo. App. 362. But see note 2, supra.

6 See the cases in note 3, supra, and Raymond v. Mann; 45 Tex. 301; Bailey v. Southwestern R Bank, 11 Fla. 266; Stafford v. Bratcher, 4 Ky. Law R 996, holding that they are of course open to defenses in the same way as promissory notes. If the agent is authorized to draw the bill, it is a bill drawn by the corporation or person upon himself. See notes 11 and 12, infra, and note 5, supra.

7 See cases in note 2, supra.

8 Brazelton v. McMurray, 44 Ala. 323; Bradley v. Mason, 6 Bush, 603. And see cases in note 2, supra.

9 Wardens v. Moore, 1 Ind. 289; Hasey v. White Pigeon Co., 1 Doug. 193; McCandlish v. Cruger, 2 Bay, 377. But see Randolph v. Parish, 9 Port. 96.

10 See the last note, and Cunningham v. Wardwell, 12 Me. 466. But Kaskaskia Bridge Co. v. Shannon, 6 I11. 15, requires demand, and We-tumpka R. Co. v. Bingham, 5 Ala. 65, requires notice.

11 Wildes v. Savage, 1 Story, 22; Bank of Brit. North Am. v. Barling, 46 Fed. R 357; Hart v Shorter, 46 Ala. 453; Rice v. Hogan, 8 Dana, 133. A bill drawn by a partner payable to his firm is not negotiable except by the firm's indorsement.

12 Lewis v. Harper, 73 Ga. 564. See note 8, supra.

13 Patillo v. Mayer, 70 Ga. 715; De Vaugh v. Haughabook, 73 Ga. 809; Planters' Bank v. Evans. 36 Tex. 592.

14 Bradley v. Mason, 6 Bush, 602; Almy v. Winslow, 126 Mass. 342; Petillon v.Lorden,86 DL 361; Brooks v. Brady, 53 111. App 155; Bunting v. Mick, 5 Ind. App. 289. See Watanother person the omission is immaterial, since the acceptance shows the person intended.15