But instruments payable on a contingency are not negotiable, and the happening of the contingency does not cure the defect; as an instrument payable when one shall become of age; Kelley v. Hemmingway, 13 Ill. 604. 56 Am. Dec. 474; or be elected to a certain office; Cooper v. Brewster, 1 Minn. 94 (Gil. 73); or when a certain estate shall be settled; Husband v. Epling, 81 Ill. 172, 25 Am. Rep. 273.
It has been a recognized rule that instru ments payable at a fixed period after date or sight, though payable before then on a contingency, are sufficiently certain to be negotiable; Stevens v. Blunt, 7 Mass. 240;• Thorp v. Mindeman, 123 Wis. 149, 101 N. W. 417, 68 L. R. A. 146, 107 Am. St. Rep. 1003.
That letters of credit "possess a real nego tiability when they relate to bills of ex change," see 2 Dan. Neg. Inst. § 1798.
A receiver's certificate is not negotiable; Turner v. R. Co., 95 Ill. 134, 35 Am. Rep. 144; nor a passbook issued by a savings bank ; Smith v. Bank, 101 N. Y. 58, 4 N. E. 123, 54 Am. Rep. 653; nor municipal war rants and orders; Stanton v. Shipley, 27 Fed. 498.
Instruments payable in services are not ; Quinby v. Merritt, 11 Humph. (Tenn.) 439; or in merchandise; Gushee v. Eddy, 11 Gray (Mass.) 502, 71 Am. Dec. 728; Tib bets v. Gerrisb, 25 N. H. 41, 57 Am. Dec. 307 ; or in the alternative, in money or merchandise ; Thompson v. Gaylard, 3 N. C. 150; or in money or bank stock ; Alexander v. Oaks, 19 N. C. 513.
A provision in a note, otherwise negotia ble, that the title to the property for which it was given shall remain in the vendor un til the note is paid, has been held to be not negotiable under the Negotiable Instruments Act; Third N. Bk. v. Spring, 28 Misc. 9, 59 N. Y. Supp. 794; but the rule is generally that such a provision will not destroy nego tiability; Chicago R. Equipment Co. v. Bank, 136 U. S. 208, 10 Sup. Ct. 999, 34 L. Ed. 349 ; First N. Bk. v. Slaughter, 98 Ala. 602, 14 South. 545, 39 Am. St. Rep. 88 ; Choate v. Stevens, 116 Mich. 28, 74 N. W. 289, 43 L. R. A. 277.
The negotiable character of an instrument is not affected by the fact that it designates a particular kind of current money in which payment is to be made; thus an instrument is payable in money if payable in "pounds sterling" ; King v. Hamilton, 12 Fed. 478; or in cash notes; Ward v. Lattimer, 2 Tex. 245; or in gold dollars; Chrysler v. Renols, 43 N. Y. 209 ; or in Mexican silver dollars ; Hogue v. Williamson, 85 Tex. 553, 22 S. W.
580, L. R. A. 481, 34 Am. St. Rep. 823; but is not payable in money if payable in bank stock ; Markley v. Rhodes, 59 Ia. 57,
12 N. W. 775; or in current bank notes; State v. Corpening, 32 N. C. 58; or in cur rent funds; Wright v. Hart's Adm'r, 44 Pa. 454 (contra, Bull v. Bank, 123 U. S. 105, 8 Sup. Ct. 62, 31 L. Ed. or in currency; Ruidskoff v. Barrett, 11 Ohio 172 (contra, Butler v. Paine, 8 Minn. 324 [Gil. 284]).
A note payable at New York in New York funds or their equivalent is not negotiable because the term "New York funds," it is presumed, may embrace stocks, bank notes, specie and every description of currency which is used in commercial transactions; Hasbrook v. Palmer, 2 McLean 10, Fed. Cas. No. 6,188 ; but a note payable in bank notes current in the city of New York was held negotiable; Keith v. Jones, 9 Johns. (N. Y.) 120; so also a note payable in "York State bills or specie"; Judah v. Harris, 19 Johns. (N. Y.) 144. See Selover, Neg. Instr. § 41.
In the absence of statute, bills and notes are treated as choses in action and are not subject to levy and sale on execution, but by statute in many states it is now otherwise; 1 Freem. Ex. § 112 ; Brown v. Anderson, 4 Mart. N. S. (La.) 416. It is held that a note may be made the subject of seizure and delivery in a replevin suit ; Smith v. Eals, 81 Ia. 235, 46 N. W. 1110, 25 Am. St. Rep. 486. That bills and notes are governed by the designation of "goods and chattels" in the statute of frauds and other statutes, see 2 Ames, Bills and Notes 706. They are goods, wares and merchandise ; Baldwin v. Wil liams, 3 Mete. (Mass.) 365; Somerby v. Buntin, 118 Mass. 279, 19 Am. Rep. 459; and are the subject of conversion ; 3 Campb. 477. They may be the subject of a donatio cattail mortis, even though payable to order and un indorsed; 2 Ames, Bills and Notes 699. Bonds and negotiable instruments are more than mere evidences of debt. The debt is in separable from the paper which declares and constitutes it by a tradition which comes down from more archaic conditions ; Black stone v. Miller, 188 U. S. 206, 23 Sup. Ct. 277, 47 L. Ed. 439 ; Bacon v. Hooker, 177 Mass. 335, 58 N. E. 1078, 83 Am. St. Rep. 279.
As to the early history of negotiable in struments, see Jenks, in 9 L. Q. R. 70 (3 Sel. Essays in Anglo-Amer. L. H. 51). As to the Negotiable Instruments Acts, see A. M. Eaton in 12 Mich. L. Rev. 89.
See PROMISSORY NOTES ; BILLS OF Ex CHANGE ; BOND ; COUPONS ; Daniel, Neg. Instr. (Calvert's Ed. 1913) ; Selover, Neg. Instru ments.