Applying the principles already given, bills of exchange have always been held to be negotiable ;J and cashiers' checks, being a form of bill, are also negotiable.2 Whether promissory notes were negotiable at Common Law is a difficult question. The English merchants undoubtedly treated them as negotiable, but Lord Holt held that they were not, and denounced the theory that they were negotiable as due to the "obstinacy and opinion-ativeness of merchants who were endeavoring to set the law of Lombard street above the law of Westminster Hall."3 Parliament settled the question by statute4 in favor of their negotiability. Was this statute declaratory or remedial ? We have authorities either way, some holding that Lord Holt was wrong, that promissory notes were negotiable at Common Law and that the statute of Anne was declaratory,5 while others agree with Lord Holt.6 The question is of practical importance in jurisdictions in the United States in which the statute of Anne is not in force and no similar statute has been adopted. Between statutes and judicial decisions it is now thoroughly settled in the United States that promissory notes are negotiable.7 So checks,8 certificates of deposit,9 coupon bonds10 and coupons on bonds11 are negotiable. Warrants drawn by public officials are negotiable if payable absolutely and consisting of an order or a promise.12 If payable conditionally, as where drawn on some particular fund,13 or if given simply as a voucher of the amount due,14 though prima facie valid,15 they are not negotiable.16 They cannot be re-issued after they have been paid and retired.17 Deposits in a savings-bank are usually made under contract that they are payable only on production of the pass-book in which such deposit is entered. This differs from similar provisions with reference to the return of certificates of deposit, in that the entries in the pass-book are mere receipts or memoranda of the money deposited. Accordingly such passbooks are not negotiable.18 There is a conflict of authority as to whether a mortgage given to secure a negotiable note is itself negotiable, some jurisdictions holding that before the maturity of the note, the assignment of the note in such form as to preserve its negotiability, carries with it the mortgage as a negotiable instrument, as free from defenses as the note ;19 others that such assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, but as a non-negotiable instrument, subject to all defenses.20

1 Jarvis v. Wilson, 46 Conn. 90; 33 Am. Rep. 18; Chenowith v. Chamberlain, 6 B. Mon. (Ky.) 60; 43 Am. Dec. 145; Carter v. Bank, 7 Humph. (Tenn.) 548; 46 Am. Dec. 89.

2 Henry v. Allen, 151 N. Y. 1; 36 L. R. A. 658; 45 N. E. 355; Drinkall v. Bank, 11 N. D. 10; 95 Am. St. Rep. 693; 57 L. R. A. 341; 88 N. W. 724. Such a check differs from an ordinary bank check in that it cannot be countermanded at will. Drinkall v. Bank, 11 N. D. 10; 95 Am.St. Rep. 693; 57 L. R. A. 341; 88 N. W. 724.

3 Clerke v. Martin, 2 Ld. Raym. 757; 1 Salk. 129, 363.

4 3 and 4 Anne, c. 9. 5 Goodwin v. Robarts, L. R. 10 Exch. 337; Dunn v. Adams, 1 Ala.

527; 35 Am. Dec. 42; Irvin v. Mau ry, 1 Mo. 194.

6 First National Bank v. Hunt, 25 Mo. App. 172; Davis v. Miller, 14 Gratt. (Va.) 1. "Promissory notes are quasi mercantile, but are not in this country, as they are in England, since the statute of Anne negotiable precisely as bills of exchange." Taylor v. Craig, 2 J. J. Mar. (Ky.), 449, 460; quoted in Smith v. Moberly, 10 B. Mon. (Ky.) 266; 52 Am. Dec. 543.

7 Murphy v. Improvement Co., 97 Fed. 723; Louisville Banking Co. v. Gray, 123 Ala. 251; 82 Am. St Rep. 120; 26 So. 205; Siegel 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;

Hatch v. Bank, 94 Me. 348; 80 Am. St. Rep. 401; 47 Atl. 908; Choate v. Stevens, 116 Mich. 28; 43 L. R. A. 277; 74 N. W. 289; Famous Shoe Co. v. Crosswhite, 124 Mo. 34; 46 Am. St. Rep. 424; 26 L. R. A. 568; 27 S. W. 397; Kirkwood v. Bank,

40 Neb. 484; 42 Am. St. Rep. 683; 24 L. R. A. 444; 58 N. W. 1016; Chase National Bank v. Faurot, 149 N. Y. 532; 35 L. R. A. 605; 44 N. E. 164; Hollinshead v. Stuart, 8 N. D. 35; 42 L. R. A. 659; 77 N. W. 89; Albertson v. Laughlin, 173 Pa. St. 525; 51 Am. St. Rep. 777; 34 Atl. 216; American National Bank v. Paper Co., 19 R. I. 149; 61 Am. St. Rep. 746; 29 L. R. A. 103; 32 Atl. 305; McLaughlin v. Braddy, 63 S. C. 433; 90 Am. St. Rep. 681;

41 S. E. 523; Merrill v. Hurley, 6 S. D. 592; 55 Am. St. Rep. 859; 62 N. W. 958; Ferriss v. Tavel, 87 Tenn. 386; 3 L. R, A. 414; 11 S. W. 93.

8 Leach v. Hill, 106 la. 171; 76 N. W. 667; Humphries v. Bicknell, 2 Litt. (Ky.) 296; 13 Am. Dec. 268; Shepard. etc., Co. v. Eldridge, 171 Mass. 516; 68 Am. St. Rep. 446; 41 L. R. A. 617; 51 N. E. 9; Barnet v. Smith, 30 N. H. 256; 64 Am. Dec. 290.

9 Bank v. Trust Co., 105 Fed. 491; Citizens' National Bank v. Brown, 45 O. S. 39; 4 Am. St. Rep. 526; 11 N. E. 799.

10 Waite v. Santa Cruz, 184 U. S. 302; Fairfield v. School District,

116 Fed. 838; reversing 111 Fed. 453; Central, etc., Co. v. Trust Co., 114 Fed. 263.

11 Trustees v. Lewis, 34 Fla. 424; 43 Am. St. Rep. 209; 26 L. R. A. 743; 16 So. 325.

12 Negotiable when drawn on any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated. Blaisdell v. School District, 72 Vt. 63; 47 Atl. 173. Negotiable as far as concerns title. Fidelity Trust Co. v. Palmer, 22 Wash. 473; 79 Am. St. Rep. 953; 61 Pac. 158.

13 National Bank v. Herold. 74 Cal. 603; 5 Am. St. Rep. 476; 16 Pac. 507.

14 City warrants. City of Hammond v. Evans, 23 lad. App. 501; 55 N. E. 784. County warrants. Atchison, etc., R. R. v. Kearny Co., 58 Kan. 19; 48 Pac. 583; First National Bank v. Gates. 66 Kan. 505; 97 Am. St. Rep. 383; sub nominer Vawter v. Gates, 72 Pac. 207. Township warrants. Gihnan v. Gilby Township, 8 N. D. 627; 73 Am. St. Rep. 791; 80 N. W. 889.

15 Pacific Paving Co. v. Mowbray, 127 Cal. 1; 59 Pac. 205.

16 Shakspear v. Smith, 77 Cal. 638; 11 Am. St. Rep. 327; 20 Pac. 294; Goose River National Bank v. School Township, 1 N. D. 26: 26 Am. St. Rep. 605; 44 N. W. 1002; Township of Snyder v. Boviard. 122 Pa. St. 442; 9 Am. St. Rep. 118; 15 Atl. 910; Hubbell v. Custer City, 15 S. D. 55; 87 N. W. 52A

17 Pugh v. More, 44 La. Ann. 209; 10 So. 710; Richardson v. Marshall County, 100 Tenn. 346; 45 S. W. 440; Branch v. Commissioners, 80 Va. 427; 56 Am. Rep. 596; Bardsley v. Sternberg, 17 Wash. 243; 49 Pac. 499; reversed in part on rehearing. 18 Wash. 612; 52 Pac. 251, 524; distinguishing Blake v. Johnson County, 18 Kan. 266; Morrow v. Surber, 97 Mo. 155; 11 S. W. 48.

18 McCaskill v. Bank, 60 Conn. 300; 25 Am. St. Rep. 323; 13 L. R. A. 737; 22 Atl. 568; White v. dishing, 88 Me. 339; 51 Am. St. Rep. 402; 32 L. R. A. 590; 34 Atl. 164; Pierce v. Bank, 129 Mass. 425; 37 Am. Rep. 371; Kummel v. Bank, 127 N. Y. 488; 13 L. R. A. 786; 28 N. E. 398; Iron City National Bank v. McCord, 139 Pa. St. 52; 23 Am. St. Rep. 166; 11 L. R. A. 559; 21 Atl. 143.

19 Carpenter v. Longan, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 271; O'Rourke v. Wahl. 109 Fed. 276; 48 C. C. A. 360; Gabbert v. Schwartz, 69 Ind. 450; Preston v. Case, 42 la. 549; Cox v. Cayan, 117

Mich. 599; 72 Am. St. Rep. 585; 76 N. W. 96; Wilson v. Campbell, 110 Mich. 580; 35 L. R. A. 544; 68 N. W. 278; Borgess Investment Co. v. Vette, 142 Mo. 560; 64 Am. St. Rep. 567; 44 S. W. 754; First National Bank v. Flath, 10 N. D. 281; 86 N. W. 867; Christianson v. Warehouse Association, 5 N. D. 438; 32 L. R. A. 730; 67 N. W. 300; Nashville Trust Co. v. Smythe. 94 Tenn. 513; 45 Am. St. Rep. 748; 27 L. R. A. 663; 29 S. W. 903; Mack v. Prang, 104 Wis. 1; 76 Am. St. Rep. 848; 45 L. R. A. 407; 79 N. W. 770.

20 Foster v. McGuire, 96 Ga. 447; 23 S. E. 398; Chicago, etc., Co. v. Aff, 183 I11. 91; 55 N. E. 659; Mul-lanphy Savings Bank v. Schott, 135 111. 655; 25 Am. St. Rep. 401; 26 N. E. 640; Pertuit v. Damare, 50 La. Ann. 893; 24 So. 681; Paulsen v. Koon. 85 Minn. 240; 88 N. W. 760; Tate v. Trust Co., 63 N. J. Eq. 559; 52 Atl. 313. (But here the assignee took as security for pre-existing debts and was held not to take for value.) Bailey v. Smith,