The law of negotiable instruments is derived from the Law Merchant. The Seal is derived from the common law. Accordingly, at common law a sealed instrument could not be negotiable.1 Thus if two guarantors sign, and A adds a seal while B does not, the note is negotiable as to B but not as to A.2 This rule, however, is no longer in force in many jurisdictions.3 A corporate seal does not destroy negotiability since it is merely the common-law form whereby the corporation indicates its assent. To hold that it destroyed negotiability would be to hold that a corporation could not issue negotiable paper.4 "The at-

Archer v. Claflin, 31 111. 306; Dean v. Carruth, 108 Mass. 242; Clarke v. Marlow, 20 Mont. 249; 50 Pac. 713; Hubbell v. Fogartie, 3 Rich. L. (S. C.) 413; 45 Am. Dec. 775.

2 Famous Shoe Co. v. Crosswhite, 124 Mo. 34; 46 Am. St. Rep. 424; 26 L. R. A. 568; 27 S. W. 397.

3 Garrigus v. Missionary Society, 3 Ind. App. 91; 50 Am. St. Rep. 262; 28 N. E. 1009. (A note "to advance the cause of missions and to induce others to contribute.")

4Siegel v. Bank. 131 111. 569; 19 Am. St. Rep. 51; 7 L. R. A. 537; 23 N. E. 417; Clanin v. Machine Co., 118 Ind. 372; 3 L. R. A. 863; 21 N. E. 35; Ferris v. Tavel, 87 Tenn.

386; 3 L. R. A. 414; 11 S. W. 93.

5 Wright v. Taver, 73 Mich. 493; 3 L. R. A. 50; 41 N. W. 517.

6Choate v. Stevens.. 116 Mich. 28; 43 L. R. A. 277; 74 N. W. 289.

1 Conine v. Ry., 3 Houst. (Del.) 288; 89 Am. Dec. 230; Brown v. Jordhal, 32 Minn. 135; 50 Am. Rep. 560; 19 N. W. 650; Osborn v. Kist-ler, 35 O. S. 99; McLaughlin v. Braddy, 63 S. C. 433; 90 Am. St. Rep. 681; 41 S. E. 523.

2 McLaughlin v. Braddy, 63 S. C. 433; 90 Am. St. Rep. 681; 41 S. E. 523.

3 Porter v. McCollum, 15 Ga. 528.

4 Kneeland v. Lawrence, 140 U. S. 209; Chicago, etc., Co. v. Bank, 136 tacking of a corporate seal bears a strong analogy to the signature of a natural person and is its substantial equivalent."5 A seal which may be treated as surplusage does not destroy negotiability.6 Some authorities, however, hold that a corporation seal makes the instrument a specialty and destroys negotiability.7

U. S. 268; Mercer County v. Hacket, 1 Wall. (U. S.) 83; Reid v. Bank, 70 Ala. 199; Chase National Bank v. Faurat, 149 N. Y. 532; 35 L. R. A. 605; 44 N. E. 164; Pittsburgh, etc., Ry. v. Lynde, 55 O. S. 23; 44 N. E. 596; American National Bank v. Paper Co., 19 R. I. 149; 61 Am. St. Rep. 746; 29 L. R. A. 103; 32 Atl. 305; Landauer v. Improvement Co., 10 S. D. 205; 72 N. W. 467.

5 Pittsburgh, etc., Ry. v. Lynde, 55 O. S. 23, 49; 44 N. E. 596.

6 Stevens v. Ball Club, 142 Pa. St. 52; 11 L. R. A. 860; 21 Atl. 797; Mackay v. Church, 15 R. I. 121; 2 Am. St. Rep. 881; 23 Atl. 108.

7Coe v. Ry., 8 Fed. 534; Frevall v. Fitch, 5 Whart. (Pa.) 325; 34 Am. Dec. 558.