NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS. Besides notes, bills, and checks, the following have been held to be negotiable instruments : ex chequer bills ; 4 B. & Ald. 1; 12 Cl. & F. 787, 805; state and municipal bonds; 3 B. & C. 45; Cromwell v. Sac County, 96 U. S. 51, 24 L. Ed. 681; Independent School Dist. v. Hall, 113 U. S. 135, 5 Sup. Ct. 371, 28 L. Ed. 954; corporate bonds ; L. R. 3 Ch. App. 758, 154; White v. R. Co., 21 How. (U. S.) 575, 16 L. Ed. 221; [1892] 3 Ch. 527; coupon bonds of an individual; In re Leland, 6 Ben. 175, Fed. Cas. No. 8,229,; coupon bonds of a corpora tion; Kenosha v. Lamson, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 477, 19 L. Ed. 725 ; Evertson v. Bank, 66 N. Y. 14, 23 Am. Rep. 9 ; Beaver County v. Arm strong, 44 Pa. 63; government scrip; L. R. 10 • Ex. 337; United States treasury notes; Vermilye v. Exp. Co., 21 Wall. (U. S.) 138, 22 L. Ed. 609; Dinsmore v. Duncan, 57 N. Y. 573, 15 Am. Rep. 534; post-office orders; 65 L. T. 52; certificates of deposit ; Miller v. Austen, 13 How. (U. S.) 218, 14 L. Ed. 119; First N. Bk: v. Bank, 34 Neb. 71, 51 N. W. 305, 15 L. R. A. 386, 33 Am. St. Rep. 618; debentures of limited companies; [1898] 2 Q. B. 658; bonds of foreign governments; 3 B. & C. 45.
The following have been held not to be ne gotiable : lottery tickets; 8 Q. B. 134 ; divi dend warrants ; 9 Q. B. 396; iron scrip notes; 3 Macq. 1; debentures, on which authorities differ ; L. R. 8 Q. B. 374 ; pass-book of sav ings bank; McCaskill v. Bank, 60 Conn. 300, 22 Atl. 568, 13 L. R. A. 737, 25 Am. St. Rep. 323; a treasury warrant not presented for three years, the amount having been covered back into the treasury; Harris v. U. S., 27 Ct. Cls. 177.
Bills of lading are not properly negotiable instruments, but they may be called so in a limited sense as against stoppage in transitu only ; Poll. Contr. 207.
An instrument in the form of a promissory note drawn by a corporation, and bearing its seal, is not a promissory note negotiable by the law merchant; per Blatchford, J., in Coe v. R. Co., 8 Fed. 534.
Any addition•to the form of a note which destroys its essential quality of a promise to pay, "simple, certain, unconditional, not subject to any contingency," will destroy its negotiable character ; Woods v. North, 84 Pa. 409, 24 Am. Rep. 201. Thus, the addi tion of the words, "given as collateral securi with agreement ;" Costelo v. Crowell, 127 Mass. 293, 34 Am. Rep. 367; warrant to confess judgment;" Sweeney v. Thickstun, 77 Pa. 131; "in facilities ;" Springfield Bank v. Merrick, 14 Mass. 322; "foreign bills ;" Jones v. Fales, 4 Mass. 245; "and it is the understanding it will be renewed at maturi ty ;" Citizens N. Bk. v. Piollet, 126 Pa. 195, 17 Atl. 603, 4 L. R. A. 190, 12 Am. St. Rep. 860; "return notice ticket with this order," and "deposit book must be at bank before money can be paid ;" Iron City N. Bk. v. McCord, 139 Pa. 53, 21 AU. 143, 11 L. R. A. 559, 23 Am. St. Rep. 166; "with ex change ;" in varying forms with respect to place; Hughitt v. Johnson, 28 Fed. 865 ; Windsor S. Bk. v. McMahon, 38 Fed. 283, 3 L. R. A. 192; 23 U. C. C. P. 503; Flagg v. School District, 4 N. D. 30, 58 N. W. 499, 25 L. R. A. 363 ; Nicely v. Bank, 15 Ind. App. 563, 44 N. E. 572, 57 Am. St. Rep. 245; contra, Bullock v. Taylor, 39 Mich. 137, 33 Am. Rep. 356; Bradley v. Lill, 4 Biss. 473, Fed. Cas. No. 1,783 ; with counsel fees, ex penses of collection, or other words to the same effect; First N. Bk. v. Bynum, 84 N. C. 27, 37 Am. Rep. 604; First N. Bk. v. Gay, 63 Mo. 35, 21 Am. Rep. 430; Hardin v. Olson, 14 Fed, 705; First N. Bk. v. Larsen, 60 Wis. 206, 19 N. W. 67, 50 Am. Rep. 365; Sperry v. Horr, 32 Ia. 184 ; Schlesinger v. Arline, 31 Fed. 649.
A note containing a tax clause is not ne gotiable; Brooke v. Struthers, 110 Mich. 562, 68 N. W. 272, 35 L. R. A. 537; McClelland v. R. Co., 110 N. Y. 469, 18 N. E. 237, 1 L. R. A. 299, 6 Am. St, Rep. 397; nor is one given for rent and subject to set-off for re pairs; Jones v. Laturnus (Tex.) 40 S. W. 1010.