A provision in a mortgage given to secure a note does not render the note non-negotiable if the note does not incorporate the provision of the mortgage.1 The fact that a statute provides specifically that different contracts between the same parties relating to the same matters which are parts of one transaction are to be taken together, does not incorporate provisions of a mortgage into the promissory note which is secured thereby so as to render such promissory note non-negotiable,2 since such provision relates only to the interpretation of the contracts.3 A provision in a mortgage, which provides that the mortgagor is to pay all taxes assessed against the note or against the mortgage, is held not to render the note non-negotiable, since such provision is not a part of the note.4 A provision in a mortgage for the payment of taxes,5 or assessments,8 or insurance,7 does not destroy the negotiability of the note secured thereby. 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.8

23 Continental Bank & Trust Co. v. Times Publishing Co., 142 La. 209, L. R. A. 1918B, 632, 76 So. 612; Myrick v. Purcell, 95 Minn. 133, 5 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 148, 103 N. W. 902; Greenbrier Valley Bank v. Bair, 71 W. Va. 684, 77 S. E. 274; Bank v. Kurth, 167 Wis. 43, 166 N. W. 658.

See Sec. 2046.

24 See Sec. 2306.

1 Farmers' National Bank v. McCall, 25 Okla. GOO, 26 L. R. A. (N.S.) 217, 106 Pac. 866; Westlake v. Cooper, - Okla. - , L. R. A. 1918D, 522, 171 Pac. 859; Page v. Ford, 65 Or. 450, 45 L. R. A. (N.S.) 247, 131 Pac. 1013. So where such provision is contained in the mortgage. Moore v. Burling, 93 Wash. 217, 160 Pac. 420.

2 Farmers' National Bank v. McCall, 25 Okla. 600, 26 L. R. A. (N.S.) 217, 106 Pac. 866.

3 Farmers' National Bank v. McCall, 25 Okla. 600, 26 L. R. A. (N.S.) 217, 106 Pac. 866.

4 Page v. Ford, 65 Or. 450, 45 L. R. A (N.S.) 247, 131 Pac. 1013.

5 Lundean v. Hamilton (Ia.) 159 N. W. .163; Garnett v. Myers, 65 Neb. 280, 91 N. W. 400; Moore v. Burling, 93 Wash. 217, 160 Pac. 420.

As where such provision is substantially what the law imposes. Bradbury v. Kinney, 63 Neb. 754, 89 N. W. 257. And see Wilson v. Campbell, 110 Mich. 580, 35 L. R. A. 544, 68 N. W. 278. .

6 Lundean v. Hamilton (la.), 159 N. W. 163.

7 Lundean v. Hamilton (la.), 159 N. W. 163; Moore v. Burlintr. 03 Wash. 217, 160 Pac. 420.

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