Promises to accept drafts or orders are considered somewhat in the light of contracts of guaranty, and the promise or the authority must be strictly followed.1 Any material departure from the terms of the authority or promise cannot be enforced against the promisor.2 A draft larger than the one authorized or promised to be accepted will be a material departure.3 A draft authorized to be drawn in a particular partnership name is not fulfilled by a draft in another name, though the same partnership used that other name interchangeably with the one authorized.4 A draft drawn upon one of three drawees will not conform to an authority authorizing a draft upon the three.5 With such strictness is the rule held as to names. A general authority to draw, or a general promise to pay, drafts will be confined to drafts drawn upon the promisor at his place of business.6 Exchange added to a draft will destroy the efficacy of the draft where exchange was not authorized;7 but the addition of exchange to a draft which could not draw exchange will be an immaterial departure.8 If consignments are required to accompany the drafts and do not, the draft will not conform to the authority, although the drawee received the consignments;9 but this ruling seems exceedingly strained, and the -court seems to have had its sense of justice poorly developed. But the better rule is that a reasonable compliance is all that is required, as instances cited in the note below l0 show. If no place is named where the draft should be drawn, the drawer is confined to no particular place.11 A stipulation that bills of lading be attached is satisfied by delivering the bill of lading with the draft,12 or, if the attached bill of lading is forged, but that fact is unknown to the payee, the payee may enforce the promise.13 If the drawee retains the proceeds of the shipment, with notice of the violation of the authority, he will be bound.14

7 See Sec. 214, ante, and Barnett v. Boone Lumber Co., 43 W. Va. 441.

8 La. Nat. Bank v. Sohuchhardt, 15 Hun, 405. The bill if altered in any way is newly issued from that time, if alteration was suggested by the drawee.

1 Wilson v. Clements, 3 Mass. 1; Lanusse v. Barker, 10 Johns. 312; Posey v. Denver Nat. Bank, 7 Colo. App. 108.

2 Wilson v. Clements, 8 Mass. 1; Lanusse v. Barker, 10 Johns. 312; reversed, 3 Wheat. 101. See the next note for case stating the general principle.

3 Nimocks v. Woodey, 97 N. C. 1.

4 First Nat. Bank v. Fiske, 133 Pa. 241.

5 Johnson v. Clark, 39 N. Y. 216.

1 Sherwin v. Brigham, 39 Ohio St 137; Saulsbury v. Blandy, 53 Ga. 665; Lienow v. Pitcairn, Fed. Cas. No. 8341. Compare Coffman v. Clarinda Bank, 33 111. A pp. 641.

2 See the cases in the preceding note.

3 Brinkman v. Hunter, 73 Mo. 172. The promise is not good as a partial acceptance.

4 First Nat Bank v. Bensley, 2 Fed R. 609.

5 Glover v. Tuck, 1 Hill, 66.

6 Michigan State Bank v. Leavenworth, 28 Vt 209.

7 Lindley v. First Nat. Bank, 76 Iowa, 629.

8 North Atchison Bank v. Garret-son, 51 Fed. R, 168.

9First Nat Bank v. Bensley, 2 Fed. R. 609. See note 14, infra.

10 North Atchison Bank v. Garret-son, 51 Fed. R. 168; Kennedy v.

Geddes, 3 Ala. 581; Lathrop v. Harlow, 23 Mo. 209.

11 Posey v. Denver Nat Bank, 7 Colo. App. 108.

12 Foreman v. Walker, 4 La. Ann. 409.

13Craig v. Sibbett, 15 Pa. 23a 14 Lewis v. Kramer, 3 Md. 265. If the drawee got the proceeds of the draft, no acceptance at all was necessary. Barney v. Worthington, 37 N. Y. 112; Merchants' Bank v. Gris-wold, 9 Hun, 561. See Sec. 222, note 8.