Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/626

TOBTBB ». OITT OP JANBBVILLB. 619 �ment of indebtedness, and a promise to pay a certain sum of money at a time certain, without condition. Andthatis just what a promissory note is. �It was not the intention or object of the statute to except promissory notes and bills of exchange by name, but to ex- cept commercial paper that is negotiable by the law mer- chant; and the words "promissory notes" and "bills of ex- change" were intended to include ail negotiable paper, by whatever technical name it might be known. �Municipal bonds of this character have always been held commercial paper by the United States courts, and it never could have been the intention of congress to distinguish be- tween these and ordinary notes and bills, giving jurisdiction in one case and not in the other. �On the other point, that -the instrument is not in form ne- gotiable, is not tenable. Though the words "bearer" or "or- der" are more commonly used to denote an intention to make a note transferable by delivery or indorsement, they are by no means essential, and any other words, evincing such an intent, are equally efficient for such a purpose. The words "or its assignees," used in the instrument, undoubtedly ren- der the note capable of being negotiable, the same as though the words "or order" had been used. They show an intent to render them transferable from person tp person. The fact of coupons being annexed for the payment of semi-annual interest running to bearer, these being part and parcel of the bond itself, confirms this view, and evinces a like intent to place the bonds on the market as commercial paper. Indeed, the purpose of their issue being to aid in the construction of a railroad, and to raise money for that purpose, they would be of very little use to eiïectuate that object if they could not be transferred. See City of Lexington v. Butler, 14 Wall. 282, 293 ; Brainerd v. A'. Y. dt H. R. Co. 25 N, Y. 496 ; Blake v. Board Sup'rs S. Co. 61 Barb. 149 ; 8 Kent's Com. 77; Story on Notes, (7th Ed.) §§ 43 and 44, and cases cited; Daniels on Negoti- able Instruments, § 1046 ; Klauber v. Biggerstaff, 47 Wis. 551. �The case of Gregg v. Westorii 7 Biss. 360, denying the jurisdiction of this court, is not in conflict with this view,' as ����