A contract to pay a certain amount "with exchange" is non-negotiable by the weight of authority.1 The reason generally given for this rule is that it is impossible to determine in advance what the rate of exchange will be, and that the amount due at maturity can not therefore be determined. But if such provision is merely inserted to make it clear that the promisor is to bear the expense of having the money transmitted to the place of payment, it does not impose any greater burden upon the promisor than the same note would have done had this provision been omitted.2

3 Witty v. Ins. Co., 123 Ind. 411, 18 Am. St. Rep. 327, 8 L. R. A. 365, 24 N. E. 141.

Contra, Vinson v. Palmer, 45 Fla. 630, 34 So. 276; Chestnut v. Chestnut, 104 Va. 539, 2 L. R. A. (N.S.) 879, 52 S. E. 348.

4 Payne v. Commercial National Bank, 177 Cal. 68, L. R. A. 1918C, 328, 169 Pac. 1007.

5Acme Coal Co. v. Northrup National Bank, 23 Wyom. 66, L. R. A. 1915D, 1084, 146 Pac. 593.

6 Acme Coal Co. v. Northrup National Bank, 23 Wyom. 66, L. R. A. 1915D, 1084, 146 Pac. 593.

7 McCoy v. Gilmore, 7 Ohio (lsfc Part) 268.

8 Legro v. Staples, 16 Me. 252.

9 Palmer v. Ward, 72 Mass. (6 Gray) 340.

l0 Bradt v. Krank, 164 N. Y. 515, 79 Am. St. Rep. 662, 58 N. E. 657.

11 Under the Negotiable Instruments Law. Brown v. Thomas, 120 Va. 763, 92 S. E. 977.

1 United States. Windsor Savings Bank v. McMahon, 38 Fed. 283, 3 L. R. A. 192.

Illinois. Lowe v. Bliss, 24 111. 168, 76 Am. Dec. 742.

Indiana. Nicely v. Bank, 15 Ind. App. 563, 57 Am. St. Rep. 245, 44 N. E. 572.

Iowa. Culbertson v. Nelson, 93 Ia. 1S7, 57 Am. St. Rep. 266, 27 L. R. A. 222, 61 N. W. 854.

Exchange is "a mere incident, not affecting the amount of the debt itself."3 If such clause makes the note non-negotiable, then every note payable at a certain place should on the same principle be non-negotiable. Accordingly some courts hold that such a clause does not destroy negotiability.4