Is a check a bill of exchange or promissary note?

ok, if u have a court order saying that u r required to pay the judgment with a certified check or money order( i know that specifing a particular coin or currency is supposed to be against public policy), anyway, if u tender a certied promissary note or bill of exchange, doesnt this definition below satisfy paying by check or money order?

CHECK, contracts. A written order or request, addressed to a bank or persons carrying on the banking business, and drawn upon them by a party having money in their hands, requesting them to pay on presentment to a person therein named or to bearer, a named sum of money.

2. It is said that checks are uniformly payable to bearer Chit. on Bills, 411; but that is not so in practice in the United States. they are generally payable to bearer, but sometimes they are payable to order.

3. Cheeks are negotiable instruments, as bills of exchange; though, strictly speaking, they are due before payment has been demanded, i$n which respect they differ from promissory notes and bills of exchange payable on a particular day. 7 T. R. 430.

4. The differences between a common check and a bill of exchange, are, First, that a check may be taken after it is overdue, and still the holder is not subject to the equities which may exist between the drawer and the party 'from whom he receives it; in the case of bills of exchange, the holder is subject to such equity. 3 John. Cas. 5, 9; 9 B. & Cr. 388. Secondly, the drawer of a bill of exchange is liable only on the condition that it be presented in due time, and, if it be dishonored, that he has had notice; but such is not the case with a check, no delay will excuse the drawer of it, unless he has suffered some loss or injury on that account, and then only pro tanto. 3 Kent, Com. 104 n. 5th ed.; 8 John. Cas. 2; Story, Prom. Notes, Sec. 492.

5. There is a kind of check known by the name of memorandum cheeks; these are given in general with an understanding that they are not to be presented at the bank on which they are drawn for payment; and, as between the parties, they have no other effect than an IOU, or common due bill; but third persons who become the holders of them, for a valuable consideration, without notice, have all the rights which the holders of ordinary cheeks can lawfully claim. Story, Prom. Notes, Sec. 499.

6. Giving a creditor a cheek on a bank does not constitute payment of a debt. 1 Hall, 56, 78; 7 S. & R. 116; 2 Pick. 204; 4 John. 296. See 3 Rand. 481. But a tender was held good when made by a check contained in a letter, requesting a receipt in return, which the plaintiff sent back, demanding a larger sum, without objecting to the nature of the tender. 3 Bouv. Inst. n. 2436.

7. A cheek delivered by a testator in his lifetime to a person as a gift, and not presented till after his death, was considered as a part of his will, and allowed to be proved as such. 3 Curt. Ecc. R. 650. Vide, generally,4 John. R. 304; 7 John. R. 26; 2 Ves. jr. 111; Yelv. 4, b, note; 7 Serg. & Rawle, 116; 3 John. Cas. 5, 259; 6 Wend. R. 445; 2 N. & M. 251; 1 Blackf. R. 104; 1 Litt. R. 194; 2 Litt. R. 299; 6 Cowen, R. 484; 4 Har. & J. 276; 13 Wend. R. 133; 10 Wend. R. 304; 7 Har. & J. 381; 1 Hall, R. 78; 15 Mass. R. 74; 4 Yerg. R. 210; 9 S. & R. 125; 2 Story, R. 502; 4 Whart. R. 252

(pay particular attention to paragrap 2 at the beginning of the definitions)

kgod,



Wow man. Those are some pretty old definitions of checks - they all are pre-UCC; probably even pre-NIL; I like it! But when these definitions were written, certified checks and money orders likely did not exist. So tying the two together will be tough. Certified checks and money orders are more secure forms of payment than any defintion listed below from what I can tell.



-squirrels

[Ice]

What substance is backing a check ?



What substance is backing a CPN ?



Here's another one: What could be backing a BoE ?



Which is backed by actual substance and which is not ?



But again, your approach to any issue must be based upon a proper foundation. It seems to me that we keep forgetting the foundation on which we stand in our struggle to maintain our Freedom.



The clue is in my previous statement. I said " ... maintain our <u>Freedom</u>."



The foundation is your Freedom. Any approach should start from that standpoint and then move into the lesser statutes / law / code that supports your position ( not the position that you are "Free", but the position of whatever issue you are addressing ).



Sometimes I think we work backwards ... citing code and case precedent, etc. We should start at the top and work our way down to the code and case precedent.



Are we not the Creditors of the U.S. ?



Are we not Free Men and Women ?



Are we not endowed with certain unalienable natural rights ?



Did not each state within the union of states vow to uphold and defend those unalienable natural rights ?



One question we struggle with is "Jurisdiction". But we look at it from the angle of "their" jurisdiction.



WHAT ABOUT <u>OUR JURISDICTION</u> ? ! !



And knowing that WE have jurisdiction . . . how do we impose it upon "them" ?



Stop looking at it from the angle they want you to ( defensively ).



Start looking at if from the angle of the Supreme Power that you hold as those that have delegated limited authority to the underlings that work for you. And keep this attitude about you at all times. It really is time to behave as a Sovereign should behave. You are the King / Queen. Behave in a manner befitting that role.



Ice

[Jerseee]

To add to Ice's post....ditto.



however, to answer the title of the thread--all are negotiable instruments--just different names with certain functions. Our exemption takes care of everything. And negotiable instruments are a means of transporting our exemption into the public. Just as a deposit slip shows that you have this much gold in your account.

Guys,



My bad. I should have put "payment" in quotes to differentiate. It's more secure according to the, uh, er, more modern rules of THEIR game. Again, one of those moments where I think in one realm and forget the more important of the two. Thanks for catching me there.



-squirrels

[EnSabahNur]

How can any Court order you to pay by a certain method??



Is that not a violation of Public Policy and HJR-192?



I would thank that Judge just opened himself up to a lot of legal troubles....No?



Ice and Jerseeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.....

[Ice]

The states are not to make anything but gold and silver as legal tender. And that is the Supreme Law of the Land.

thanks for the responses. ok, they all are negotiable instruments. none are backed by substance, and , like ice said, they are not lawful money.

[Ice]

Actually, any "note" is backed by "substance not yet realized" -- YOUR FUTURE LABOR / EARNINGS . . . Unless the "note" has actual physical collateral attached to it.

ice,



which "state" is that directed to - organic or corporate?



jon