Sec. 764. For Money Only
Description
This section is from the book "The Law Of Contracts", by William Herbert Page. Also available from Amazon: Commercial Contracts: A Practical Guide to Deals, Contracts, Agreements and Promises.
Sec. 764. For Money Only
The contract must be one for the payment of money only. Accordingly, a promise to pay in work, as a railroad ticket,1 or in property other than money,2 even if such other property is itself negotiable as bills of exchange,3 checks,4 notes,5 or United States bonds,6 is not negotiable. But a promise to pay in "current funds" has been held to mean current money, and hence to be negotiable ;7 and so of "current funds of the state of
21 Am. St. Rep. 434; 7 L. R. A. 392; 23 N. E. 835.
5 Moore v. Gano, 12 Ohio 300.
6 Messmore v. Morrison, 172 Pa. St. 300; 34 Atl. 45.
7 Johnson School Township v. Bank, 81 Ind. 515; Kimball v. Huntington, 10 Wend. (N. Y.) 675; 25 Am. Dee. 590.
8 Ubsdell v. Cunningham, 22 Mo. 124.
9 Cowan v. Halleck, 9 Colo. 572; 13 Pac. 700.
10 Smith v. Allen, 5 Day (Conn.) 337. Contra, Brown v. Gilman, 13 Mass. 158.
11 Stewart v. Smith, 28 111. 397; Long v. Straus, 107 Ind. 94; 57 Am. Rep. 87; 6 N. E. 123; 7 N. E. 763; Cummings v. Freeman, 2 Humph. (Tenn.) 143.
12 Woodbridge v. Drought, 118 Ga. 671; 45 S. E. 266.
1 Frank v. Ingalls, 41 O. S. 560.
2 May v. Lansdown, 6 J J. Mar. (Ky.) 165; Gushee v. Eddy, 11 Gray (Mass.) 502; 71 Am. Dec. 728; Rhodes Lindly, 3 Ohio 51; 17 Am. Dec. 580; Hyland v. Blodgett, 9 Or. 166; 42 Am. Rep. 799.
3 First National Bank v. Slette 67 Minn. 425; 64 Am. St. Rep. 429; 69 N. W. 1148.
4 National Bank of Farmersville v. Bank, 84 Tex. 40; 19 S. W. 334.
5 Williams v. Sims, 22 Ala. 512.
6 Easton v. Hyde. 13 Minn. 90.
7 Bull v. Bank, 123 U. S. 105; Telford v. Patton, 144 111. 611; 33 N. E. 1119; Hatch v. Bank. 94 Me. 348; 80 Am. St. Rep. 401; 47 Atl. 908; Kirkwood v. Bank,
Ohio,"8 or "currency."9 A note payable in notes of a specific bank,10 or in bank-notes generally,11 is not negotiable. A promise to pay foreign money is negotiable.1" A reference to collateral security does not destroy negotiability.13 A power of attorney to confess judgment is held in some jurisdictions to destroy negotiability;14 in others not to do so.15 However, a power to confess judgment at any time after its date, whether it is due or not, makes the date of its maturity in effect uncertain, and for that reason destroys negotiability.16
Continue to:
My Books
