Hasha

Appellant does not question the findings that defendant Hasha, in payment for materials furnished him by respondent in the construction of two houses, drew two orders, dated respectively July 26, 1926, and August 5, 1926, against funds to his credit in appel lant’s possession; that immediately after their dates, respondent presented the orders to appellant, who then gave its written receipt therefor; and that appellant, after retaining the orders until December 20, 1926, returned them to respondent, with a refusal to pay. Appellant, however, disputes the evidence’s support of the further finding that appellant promised and agreed to pay the orders.

In absence of statute, the mere retention of the orders, unaccompanied by circumstances from which an intention to accept may be implied, was insufficient to establish acceptance of the orders. (Notes, 8 Ann. Cas. 612; 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1266.) Appellant argues that, since the orders are not payable to order or to bearer, they are not bills of exchange as defined by section 3207 of the Civil Code and that, therefore, their retention cannot be deemed an acceptance under section 3218 of the same code. Conceding for present purposes the…