Closely connected with the last element is the rule that a certain time of payment must be fixed. This does not mean that the exact date of payment is ascertainable from the contract itself. An instrument payable on some event which is bound to come to pass is negotiable even if the exact date cannot be determined in advance. Thus a note payable on demand,1 or at the death of a given person,2 is negotiable. If no time of payment is given in the note, it is in legal effect payable on demand and is negotiable.3 So a clause providing that default in the interest may, at the option of the payee, make the principal fall due at a time earlier than that fixed by the instrument, does not prevent the contract from being negotiable.4 A note due on or pleted.14 A clause providing for an extension of time for a definite period at the option of the maker does not make the contract non-negotiable.15 A provision making the right to renewal contingent on some specific event has been held to make the contract non-negotiable.16 A general provision for renewal, not for a specific time,17 or a clause giving a majority of bond-holders the right to waive default in payment,18 makes the time of payment uncertain and destroys negotiability.

7Hayes v. Gwin, 19 Ind. 19.

8Costelo v. Crowell, 127 Mass. 293; 34 Am. Rep. 367.

9 Miller v. Austen, 13 How. (U. S.) 218; Drake v. Markle, 21 Ind. 433; 83 Am. Dec. 358; Hatch v. Bank, 94 Me. 348; 80 Am. St. Rep. 401; 47 Atl. 908; Kirkwood v. Bank, 40 Neb. 484; 42 Am. St. Rep. 683; 24 L. R. A. 444; 58 N. W. 1016; Frank v. Weasels, 64 N. Y. 155. Contra, Hubbard v. Mosely, 11 Gray (Mass.) 170; 71 Am. Dec. 698.

1 White v. Smith, 77 111. 351; 20 Am. Rep. 251.

2Crider v. Shelby, 95 Fed. 212; Bristol v. Warner, 19 Conn. 7; Beat-ty v. College, 177 111. 280; 69 Am. St. Rep. 242; 42 L. R. A. 797; 52 N. E. 432; Price v. Jones, 105 Ind. 543; 55 Am. Rep. 230; 5 N. E. 683; Carnwright v. Gray, 127 N. Y. 92;

24 Am. St. Rep. 424; 12 L. R. A. 845; 27 N. E. 835.

3Swatts v. Bowen, 141 Ind. 322; 40 N. E. 1057; Palmer v. Palmer, 36 Mich. 487; 24 Am. Rep. 605; Jones v. Brown. 11 O. S. 601.

4 De Hass v. Dibert, 70 Fed. 227; 30 L. R. A. 189; Hunter v. Clarke, 184 111. 158; 75 Am. St. Rep. 160; 56 N. E. 297; Clark v. Skeen, 61 Kan. 526; 78 Am. St. Rep. 337; 49 L. R. A. 190; 60 Pac. 327; Mar-key v. Corey, 108 Mich. 184; 62 Am. St. Rep. 698; 36 L. R. A. 117; 66 N. W. 493; Hollinshead v. Stuart, 8 N. D. 35; 42 L. R. A. 659; 77 N. W. 89; United States National Bank v. Floss, 38 Or. 68; 84 Am. St. Rep. 752; 62 Pac. 751; Merrill v. Hurley, 6 S. D. 592; 55 Am. St. Rep. 859; 62 N. W. 958. So with a contract that if the mortgagor before a certain date,5 or within a certain period,6 or in a certain time, the payee to have the option of paying in a shorter period,7 is negotiable. In all these cases the time of payment, though not ascertainable when the instrument is given, is bound to arrive eventually. Some authorities, however, treat contracts for the payment of money on or before a certain date as non-negotiable.8 A clause in a mortgage, referred to in a note, making the note due on failure to pay taxes and assessments for thirty days after they were due, was held to make the note non-negotiable.9 A similar clause giving the holder of the note the option of declaring it due on default in paying taxes and assessments does not destroy negotiability.10 A clause in a mortgage not referred to in the note giving the mortgagee the option of declaring the whole debt due on any default was held not to affect the note and hence to leave it negotiable.11 An instrument payable on the happening of an event which may not happen is conditional and therefore non-negotiable, as a note payable when a certain suit is settled,12 or an estate is settled,13 or when a canal is corndoes not pay insurance premiums, the mortgagee may declare the debt due. Consterdine v. Moore, 65 Neb. 291; 91 N. W. 399.

5 Hunter v. Clarke, 184 111. 158; 75 Am. St. Rep. 160; 56 N. E. 297; First National Bank v. Skeen, 101 Mo. 683; 11 L. R. A. 748; 14 S. W. 732; Jordan v. Tate, 19 0. S. 586; Albertson v. Laughlin, 173 Pa. St. 525; 51 Am. St. Rep. 777; 34 Atl. 216. So a clause making a note due in four years payable on sale or removal of timber on the land for which such note was given, before the end of such time does not destroy negotiability. Joergenson v. Joergenson, 28 Wash. 477; 92 Am. St. Rep. 888; 68 Pac. 913. See to the same effect, Charlton v. Reed, 61 la. 166; 47 Am. Rep. 808; 16 N. W. 64; Walker v. Woollen, 54 Ind. 164; 23 Am. Rep. 639. Contra,

First National Bank of Port Huron v. Carson, 60 Mich. 432; 27 N. W. 589.

6 Leader v. Plante, 95 Me. 339; 85 Am. St. Rep. 415; 50 Atl. 54.

7 American National Bank v. Paper Co., 19 R. I. 149; 61 Am. St. Rep. 746; 29 L. R. A. 103; 32 Atl. 305.

8Mahoney v. Fitzpatrick, 133 Mass. 151; 43 Am. Rep. 502.

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

10 Wilson v. Campbell. 110 Mich. 580; 35 L. R. A. 544; 68 N. W. 278.

11White v. Miller, 52 Minn. 367; 19 L. R. A. 673; 54 N. W. 736.

12 Burgess v. Fairbanks, 83 Cal. 215; 17 Am. St. Rep. 230; 23 Pac. 292; Shelton v. Bruce, 9 Yerg. (Tenn.) 24.

13 Husband v. Epling, 81 111. 172; 25 Am. Rep. 273.