It should be properly dated, both as to place and time of making; Beawes, Lex Mere. pl. 3; 2 Pardessus, n. 333; 1 B. & C. 398. But it is not essential to the validity of a bill ; '1 Dan. Neg. Inst. § 82; Drake v. Rogers, 32 Me. 524; Coon v. Swan, 30 Vt. 11. If not dated, it will be considered as dated at the time it was made; Seldonridge v. Connable, 32 Ind. 375 ; Cowing v. Altman, 71 N. Y. 441, 27 Am. Rep. 70; First Nat.
Bank of St. Charles v. Hunt, 25 Mo. App. 174. Bills are sometimes ante or post-dated for convenience ; Union Bethel African M. E. Church v. Sheriff, 33 La. Ann. 1461; Fraz ier v. Printing & llookbinding Co., 24 Hun (N. Y.) 281.
The superscription of the sum for which the bill is payable aid an omission in the bill, but is not Indispensable; Smith v. Smith, 1 R. I. 398, 53 Am. Dec. 652; 10 Q. B. Div. 30.
The time of payment should be expressed; but if no time is mentioned it is considered as payable on demand; 2 B. & C. 157; Por ter v. Porter, 51 Me. 376; First Nat. Bank of St. Charles v. Hunt, 25 Mo. App. 174; Con verse v. Johnson, 146 Mass. 22, 14 N. E. 925 ; Hall v. Toby, 110 Pa. 318, 1 Atl. 369; Ros well Mfg. Co. v. Hudson, Watson & Co., 72 Ga. 25; L. R. 3 Q. B. 573. In Massachusetts it must be payable at a definite time or at such a time as can be made definite upon election of the holder; Stults v. Silva, 119 Mass. 137; Mahoney v. .Fitzpatrft, 133 Mass.. 151, 43 Am. Rep. 502.
The place of payment may be prescribed by the drawer ; 8 C. B. 433; or by the ac ceptor on his acceptance ; 3 Jur. 34; Green v. Goings, 7 Barb. (N. Y.) 652; but is not as a general practice, in which last case the bill is considered as payable and to be pre sented at the usual place' of business of the drawee, King v. Holmes, 11 Pa. 456, at his residence, where it was made, or to him personally anywhere; 10 B. & C. 4; M. & M. 381; 4 C. & P. :-.',5 ; Scott v: Perlee, 39 Ohio St. 67, 48 Am. Rep. 421.
Such an order/ or request to pay must be made as demautls a right, and not asks a favor; M. & M. 171; and it must be absolute, and not contingent; 2 B. & Ald. 417; Wool ley v. Sergeant;, 8 N. J. L. 262, 14 Am. Dec. 419; Smurr v. Forman, 1 Ohio, 272; Van Vacter v. Fla,ek, 1 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 393, 40 Am. Dec.' 100 ; Henry v. Hazen, 5 Ark. 401; Kinney v. Lee, 10 Tex. 155. Mere civil ity in the terms does not alter the legal ef fect of the instrument.
The wod pay is not necessary ; deliver is equally operative; 8 Mod. 364; as well as other words; 9 C. B. 570; but they must be words requiring payment; 10 .d. & E. 98; "il volia plaira de payer" is, ih France, the proper/language of a bill; Pailliet, Man. 841.
Eac of the duplicate or triplicate (as the case ay be) bills of a set of foreign ex chan e contains a provision that the particu lar tffil is to be paid only if the others re mairi at the time unpaid; see 2 Pardessus, n. 3 2 ; and all the parts of the set constitute
bu one bill; Ingraham v. Gibbs, 2 Dall. (U. S. 134, 1 L. Ed. 320.
(A bill should designate the payee; 26 E. L. & i Eq. 404 ; Lyon v. Marshall, 11 Barb. (N. Y.) 244; Moody v. Threlkeld, 13 Ga. 55; Tittle v. Thomas, 30 Miss. 122, 64 Am. Dec. 154; Ala= v. King, 16 Ill. 169, 61 Am. Dec. 64; and see Wheeler v. Webster, 1 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 1; Moore v. Anderson, 8 Ind. 18; but when no payee is designated, the holder by indorsement may fill the blank with his own name; 2 Maule & S. 90 ; and if payable to bearer it is sufficient; 3 Burr. 1526.
To make it negotiable, it must be payable to the ordeg of the payee or to the bearer, or must contain other equivalent and opera tive words of transfer ; 9 B. & C. 409 ; Gerard v. La Coste, 1 Dall. (U. S.) 194, 1 L. Ed. 96; Downing v. Backenstoes, 3 Caines (N. Y.) 137; Feruon v. Farmer's Adm'r, 1 Harr. ('Del.) 32 ; Hackney v. Jones, 3 Humphr. (Tenn.) 612 ;, Reed v. Murphy, 1 Ga. 236; Smurr v. Forman, 1 Ohio, 272; Raymond v. Middleton, 29 Pa. 530; otherwise in some states of the United States by statute, and in Scotland; Maxwell v. Goodrum, 10 B. Monr. (Ky.) 286. But in England and the United States negotiability is not essential to the validity of a bill; 3 Kent 78; Big. Bills & N. 12; 6 Term 123 ; President, etc., of Goshen & Minisink Turnpike Road v. Hurtin, 9 Johns. (N. Y.) 217, 6 Am. Dec. 273; Duncan v. Say. Inst., 10 Gill & J. (Md.) 299; Coursin v. Ledlie's Adm'rs, 31 Pa. 506 ; Michigan Bank v. Eldred, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 544, 19 L. Ed. 763; though it is otherwise in France; Code de Comm. art. 110, 188; 2 Pardessus, n. 339. The fact that the bill Provides that it shall bear interest from date in case of failure to pay at maturity, will not affect its negotiability as the rule that it must be for a sum certain applies to the principal and not interest •; Christian County Bank v. Goode, 44 Mo. App. 129; nor a provision that a higher rate of interest shall be paid after default ; Merrill v. Hur ley, 6 S. D. 592, 62 N. W. 958, 55 Am. St. Rep. 859; nor will its negotiability be affect ed by a stipulation in it to pay a reasonable attorney's fee ; Bank of Commerce of Owens boro v. Fuqua, 11 Mont. 285, 28 Pac. 291, 14 L. R. A. 588, 28 Am. St. Rep. 461; Wolff v. Dorsey, 38 Ill. App. 305 ; Stark v. Olsen, 44 Neb. 646, 63 N. W. 37 ; Benn v. Kutzschan, 24 Or. 28, 32 Pac. 763; contra, Clark v. Barnes, 58 Mo. App. 667; First Nat. Bank of Decorah v. Laughlin, 4 N. D. 391, 61 N. W. 473; Woods v. North, 84 Pa. 407, 24 Am. Rep. 201.