The promise or order must be for a sum certain. If the amount to be paid cannot be determined from the face of the contract itself, the contract is not negotiable.1 A note expressing the amount in figures in one corner, the amount being omitted in the body of the note is for a sum certain.2 A note for "eight hundred and sixty-eight," the word dollars being omitted, is made certain by the figures $868.3 A promise to pay whatever amount might be collected4 or to pay a certain sum of money and whatever premiums might be due upon a certain policy,5 or to pay a certain sum and all taxes assessed against the realty mortgaged to secure such debt,6 or to pay interest and taxes on the note itself,7 or a promise to pay a "bill of two hundred sixty-five 50-100 dollars"8 are none of them for a sum certain. A clause giving the payee bank the right to appropriate to the payment of the note, before or after maturity, the amount on deposit by the makers or either of them, does not make the amount due uncertain.9 But a clause giving the holder power to sell certain collateral security before maturity and apply the proceeds to the note has been held to make the amount uncertain.10 So provision for the payment of uncertain sums at uncertain times before maturity, leaving uncertain the amount due at maturity, destroys negotiability11 since it leaves the amount to be paid at maturity uncertain. A provision in a mortgage for the payment of taxes,12 does not destroy the negotiability of the note secured thereby. But if referred to in the note, and if by statute the mortgagee's interest is to be taxed separate from the mortgagor's, a clause in a mortgage requiring the mortgagor to pay all taxes on the realty destroys negotiability.13 A promise to pay attorney's fees,14 either a certain per cent of the amount of the note,15 or to pay reasonable attorney's fees,16 does not make the instrument non-negotiable. One reason for this is that such provisions do not operate unless the note is dishonored, when it ceases to be negotiable.17 Another reason suggested in other jurisdictions is that such clause is void.18 In other jurisdictions a promise to pay attorney's fees destroys negotiability19 since the amount due is rendered uncertain. Statutes providing that a negotiable instrument must not contain any other contract make such notes non-negotiable,20 whether such contract provides for a fixed per cent,21 as an attorney's fee, or merely such sum as the court should hold to be reasonable.22 A contract to pay a certain

40 Neb. 484; 42 Am. St. Rep. 683; 24 L. R. A. 444; 58 N. W. 1016; Citizens' National Bank v. Brown, 45 O. S. 39; 4 Am. St. Rep. 526; 11 N. E. 799. Contra, Johnson v. Henderson, 76 N. C. 227; Texas, etc. Co. v. Carroll, 63 Tex. 48.

8 White v. Richmond, 16 Ohio 5. So Ehle v. Bank, 24 N. Y. 548. Contra, Chambers v. George, 5 Litt. (Ky.) 335.

9 Howe v. Hartness, 11 O. S. 449; 78 Am. Dec. 312.

10 Irvine v. Lowry, 14 Pet. (U. S.) 293; Shamokin Bank v. Street, 16 O. S. 1.

11 Kirkpatrick v. McCullongh, 3 Humph. (Tenn.) 171; 39 Am. Dec. 158. Contra, if payable in "current Ohio bank-notes." Swetland v. Creigh, 15 Ohio 118.

12 Canada currency. Black v. Ward, 27 Mich. 191; 15 Am. Rep. 162. Mexican dollars. Hogue v. Williamson, 85 Tex. 553; 34 Am. St. Rep. 823; 20 L. R. A. 481: 22 S. W. 580. Contra, Canada money.

Thompson v. Sloan, 23 Wend, (N. Y.) 71; 35 Am. Dec. 546.

13Roblee v. Bank, - Neb. - ; 9S N. W. 61; (citing Fleckner v. Bank, 8 Wheat. (U. S.) 338; Knipper v. Chase, 7 la. 145; Towne v. Rice, 122 Mass. 67; Blumenthal v. Jassoy, 19 Minn. 177; 12 N. W. 517).

14 Richards v. Barlow, 140 Mass. 218; 6 N. E. 68; Conrad Seipp Brewing Co. v. McKittrick, 86 Mich. 191; 48 N. W. 1086; Sweeney v. Thickstun, 77 Pa. St. 131.

15 Tolman v. Janson, 106 Ia. 455; 76 N. W. 732; Gilmore v. Hirst, 56 Kan. 626; 44 Pac. 603; Osborn v. Hawley, 19 Ohio 130.

16 Wisconsin Yearly Meeting, etc., v. Babler, 115 Wis. 289; 91 N. W. 678.

1"An instrument for a specified sum of money, and also for the payment of something else the value of which is not ascertainable, but depends upon extrinsic evidence, is not a note." Lowe v. Bliss, 24 111. 168, 170; 76 Am. Dec. 742.

2 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, - Fla. -; 34 So. 276.

3 McCoy v. Gilmore, 7 Ohio (1st Part) 268.

4 Legro v. Staples, 16 Me. 252.

5 Palmer v. Ward, 6 Gray (Mass.) 340.

6 Walker v. Thompson, 108 Mich. 686; 66 N. W. 584.

7 Smith v. Myers, 207 111. 126; 69 N. E. 858; affirming 107 111. App. 410.

8Bradt v. Krank. 164 N. Y. 515; 79 Am. St. Rep. 662; 58 N. E. 657.

9 Louisville Banking Co. v. Gray, 123 Ala. 251; 82 Am. St. Rep. 120; 26 So. 205 (citing Hodges v. Shuler, 22 X. Y. 114).

10 Smith v. Marland, 59 la. 645; 13 X. W. 852.

11Roblee v. Bank, - Neb. -; 95 X. W. 61.

12 Garnett v. Myers, 65 Neb. 280; 91 X. W. 400. As where such provision is substantially what the law imposes. Bradbury v. Kinney, 63 Neb. 754; 89 X. W. 257. And see Wilson v. Campbell, 110 Mich. 580; 35 L. R. A. 544; 68 X. W. 278.

13 Brooke v. Struthers, 110 Mich. 562; 35 L. R. A. 536; 68 N. W. 272.

14 Gaar v. Banking Co., 11 Bush. (Ky.) 180; 21 Am. Rep. 209; Stark v. Olsen, 44 Neb. 646; 63 N. W. 37; Clifton v. Bank, 75 Miss. 929; 23 So. 394; Bank v. Fuqua, 11 Mont. 285; 28 Am. St. Rep. 461; 14 L. R. A. 588; 28 Pac. 291.

15 Montgomery First National Bank v. Slaughter, 98 Ala. 602; 39 Am. St. Rep. 88; 14 So. 545; Dor-sey v. Wolff, 142 III. 589; 34 Am. St. Rep. 99; 18 L. R. A. 428; 32 N. E. 495; Shenandoah National Bank v. Marsh, 89 la. 273; 48 Am. St. Rep. 381; 56 N. W. 458.

16 Oppenheimer v. Bank, 97 Tenn. 19; 56 Am. St. Rep. 778; 33 L. R. A. 767; 36 S. W. 705.

17 Farmers' National Bank v. Mfg. Co., 52 Fed. 191; 17 L. R. A. 595; Hunter v. Clarke, 184 111. 158; 75 Am. St. Rep. 160; 56 N. E. 297; Salisbury v. Stewart, 15 Utah 308; 62 Am. St. Rep. 934; 49 Pac. 777.

18Maynard v. Mier, 85 Ind. 317;

Witherspoon v. Musselman, 14 Bush.

(Ky.) 214; 29 Am. Rep. 404;

Chandler v. Kennedy, 8 S. D. 56; 65

N. W. 439. So where by statute such clause is void unless defendant files a plea in action on note. Jones v. Crawford, 107 Ga. 318; 45 L. R. A. 105; 33 S. E. 51.

19 Roads v. Webb, 91 Me. 406;

64 Am. St. Rep. 246; 40 Atl. 128; Altman v. Rittershofer, 68 Mich. 287; 13 Am. St. Rep. 341; 36 N. W. 74; Sylvester Bleckley Co. v. Alewine, 48 S. C. 308; 37 L. R. A. 86; 26 S. E. 609; Baird v. Vines, - S. D. -; 99 N. W. 89.

20 Meyer v. Weber, 133 Cal. 681;

65 Pac. 1110; Findlay v. Pott, 131 Cal. 385; 63 Pac. 694; Adams v. Seaman, 82 Cal. 636, 7 L. R. A. 224; 23 Pac. 53; Stadler v. Bank, 22 Mont. 190; 74 Am. St. Rep. 582; 56 Pac. 111. (Contrary rule before statute. Bank v. Fuqua, 11 Mont. 285; 28 Am. St. Rep. 461; 11 L. R. A. 588; 28 Pac. 291.) Lippincott v. Rich, 22 Utah 196; 61 Pac. 526. Contrary rule before statute. Salisbury v. Stewart, 15 Utah 308; 62 Am. St. Rep. 934; 49 Pac. 777.

21 First National Bank v. Bab-cock, 94 Cal. 96; 28 Am. St. Rep. 94; 28 L. R. A. 94; 29 Pac. 415.

22 Kendall v. Parker, 103 Cal. 319; amount "with exchange" is non-negotiable by the weight of authority.23 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 cannot 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.24 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.25 A provision that the rate of interest shall be higher after maturity does not make the contract non-negotiable,20 nor does a provision that interest on a debt due on demand shall be paid only if demand is not made within a certain time.27 In some jurisdictions a provision that default at maturity should increase the rate from the date of the instrument has been held not make it non-negotiable.28 In others a provision for a reduction in the rate of interest if paid at maturity makes the contract non-negotiable.29 A provision for increasing the rate of interest in the event of certain specified defaults is held to be void and hence not to destroy negotiability.30 A contract to pay costs of collection does not destroy negotiability, since if it adds any legal liability it is for attorney's fees only.31

42 Am. St. Rep. 117; 37 Pac. 401.

23 Windsor Savings Bank v. Mc-Mahon, 38 Fed. 283; 3 L. R. A. 192; Lowe v. Bliss, 24 111. 168; 76 Am. Dee. 742; Nicely v. Bank. 15 Ind. App. 563; 57 Am. St. Rep. 245; 44 N. E. 572; Culbertson v. Nelson, 93 la. 187; 57 Am. St. Rep. 266; 27 L. R. A. 222; 61 N. W. 854; Flagg v. School District, 4 N. D. 30; 25 L. R. A. 363; 58 N. W. 499.

24 Bullock v. Taylor, 39 Mich. 137; 33 Am. Rep. 356.

25 Clark v. Skeen, 61 Kan. 526; 78 Am. St. Rep. 337; 49 L. R. A. 190; 60 Pac. 327; Smith v. Kendall. 9 Mich. 241; 80 Am. Dec. 83; Hastings v. Thompson, 54 Minn. 184; 40 Am, St Rep. 315; 21 L. R. A. 17*; 55 N. W. 968; Haslack v. Wolf, - Neb. -; 60 L. R. A. 434; 98. N. W. 574.

26 De Hass v. Dibert, 70 Fed. 227; 30 L. R. A. 189; Towne v. Rice. 122 Mass. 67; Hollinshead v. Stuart, 8 N. D. 35; 42 L. R. A. 659; 77 N. W. 89; Merrill v. Hurley, 6 S. D. 592; 55 Am. St. Rep. 859; 62 N. W. 958.

27 Certificate of deposit: Hatch v. Bank, 94 Me. 348; 80 Am. St. .Rep. 401; 47 Atl. 908. As where the deposit was to bear interest if left six months: no interest after six months. Kirkwood v. Bank, 40 Neb. 484; 42 Am. St. Rep. 683; 24 L. R. A. 444; 58 N. W. 1016.

28 Crump v. Berdan, 97 Mich. 293; 37 Am. St. Rep. 345; 56 N. W. 559; Smith v. Crane, 33 Minn. 144; 53 Am. Rep. 20; 22 N. W. 633; Hope v. Barker. 112 Mo. 338; 34 Am. St. Rep. 387; 20 S. W. 567.