Various statutes require acceptances to be in writing and unconditional.1 Acceptances of checks are held to be. within the terms of these statutes.2 Under these statutes, and a fortiori where there is no such statute, blank acceptances by the acceptor, consisting merely of signing the acceptor's name3 or writing the name on the face of the bill,4 are sufficient. The words "except"5 or "accepted " or "presented " or " seen "6 are

7 Gray, 217; Robinson v. Ames, 20 Johns. 146; Jordan v. Wheeler, 20 Tex. 698; Aymer v. Biers, 7 Cow. 705; Depau v. Brown, Harp. 251.

9Linville v. Welch, 29 Mo. 203 The holder is not responsible for a delay in the mail. Walsh v. Blatch-ley, 6 Wis. 422.

10 Wallace v. Agry, 4 Mason, 336. In this case, which is a charge to the jury, Judge Story shows his tendency to be inaccurate. He said bills payable so many days after date must be presented before maturity, while bills payable so many days after sight might be negotiated. The two things are essentially different. The one class of bills need not be presented for acceptance at all; the other class must be. For other illustrations see cases in note 7, supra.

1New York Bank v. Gibson, 5 Duer, 574

2Garretson v. North Atchison Bank, 47 Fed. R 867; Duncan v.

Berlin, 60 N. Y. 151; First Nat. Bank v. Nelson, 105 Ala. 180. Other statutes are noticed in Wheatly v. Strobe, 12 Cal. 92; Flato v. Mulhall, 72 Mo. 522: Hall v. Flanders, 83 Me. 242; Upham v. Clute, 105 Mich. 350.

3Moiese v. Knapp, 30 Ga. 942. This was a blank acceptance delivered before the draft was filled out. Fowler v. Gate City Nat Bank, 88 Ga. 29; Wheeler v. Webster, 1 E. D. Smith, 1 (under statute); Mechanics' Bank v. Yager, 62 Miss. 529 (under statute); Kaufman v. Bar-ringer, 20 La. Ann. 419 (under statute); Haines v. Nance, 52 111. App. 408 (this was a case of name indorsed on back of the bill).

4 Spear v. Pratt, 2 Hill, 582; Walters v. Galveston R Co., 1 White & W., Sec. 757.

5 Miller v. Butler, 1 Cranch, C. C. 470; Vanstrum v. Liljengren, 37 Minn. 191; Cortelyou v. Maben. 22 Neb. 697.

6 Spear v. Pratt, 2 Hill, 582. A sufficient, or the words "I will see the within paid eventually" are a good acceptance when written on the bill.7 But an oral promise to pay the bill is not sufficient under the statute8 although accompanied by an acknowledgment of the possession of funds.9 If the acceptor refuses to accept, but writes something upon the bill which may fairly be construed as an acceptance, he will be bound to a bona fide holder.10 A written promise to pay the bill would be an acceptance under this statute,11 and on principle any writing which would be good proof of a written acceptance without the statute ought to be held a sufficient acceptance under the statute.12 Since the words " I take notice of the above " are not an acceptance without the statute, even when written,13 they ought not to be so considered under the statute. So of a part payment of the bill,14 or of words evidencing an intent not to accept, though signed by the acceptor.15 But a blank indorsement would probably be considered a good written acceptance whether under the statute or at common law.16 But the fact that the acceptance is oral when it is required to be in writing can be made as an objection, it is held on the analogy of the statute of frauds, only by the acceptor;17 and although the written or oral order may not be enforceable as an acceptance for want of a written acceptance, it may yet be good as an assignment of a sum due,18 provided it be in proper form.

guaranty is sufficient. Block v. Wilkerson, 42 Ark. 253.

7 Brannin v. Henderson, 12 B. Mon. 61.

8 See cases in note 2.

9Pope v. Luff, 7 Hill, 577. See De Liquero v. Munson, 11 Heisk. 15.

10 Gallagher v. Black, 44 Me. 99.

11 O'Donnel v. Smith, 2 E. D. Smith, 124.

12 There are no cases which so state.

13Cook v. Baldwin, 120 Mass. 317.

14 Cook v. Baldwin, 120 Mass. 317.

15 Norton v. Knapp, 64 Iowa, 112.

The acknowledgment in writing of the receipt of the bill is not an acceptance (Smith v. Milton, 133 Mass. 369); but if accompanied by a promise to pay, it is. Pope v. Huth, 14 Cal. 403.

16 See Haines v. Nance, 52 111. App. 406.

17 Ulrich v. Hower, 156 Pa, 414, semble; Moeser v. Schneider, 158 Pa. 412. Contra, Erickson v. Inman Poulson Co., 54 Pac. R. 949.

18 Trumbower v. Ivey,.2 Pa. Co. Ct R. 470; Ulrioh v. Hower, 156 Pa. 414. And see Luff v. Pope, 5 Hill, 413.