A promise to pay attorney's fees,1 either a certain per cent. of the amount of the note,2 or to pay reasonable attorney's fees3 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.4 Another reason suggested in other jurisdictions is that such clause is void.5 the note is rendered uncertain. Statutes providing that a negotiable instrument must not contain any other contract, make such notes non-negotiabie,7 whether such contract provides for a fixed per cent.,8 as an attorney's fee, or merely such sum as the court should hold to be reasonable.9

In other jurisdictions a promise to pay attorney's fees destroys negotiability,6 since the amount due when action is brought upon 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.10

Bank v. Gleichmann, 50 Okla. 441, L. R. A. 1915F, 1203, 150 Pac. 908].

9 Story v. Lamb, 52 Mich. 525, 18 N. W. 248

10 Hegeler v Comstock, 1 S. D. 138, 8 L R. A. 393, 45 N. W. 331.

11 Cherry v. Sprague, 187 Mass. 113, 105 Am. St. Rep. 381, 67 L. R. A 33, 72 N. E. 456.

1 California. Glenn v. Rice, 174 Cal. 269, 162 Pac. 1020.

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

Kentucky. Gaar v. Banking Co., 74 Ky. (11 Bush), 180, 21 Am. Rep. 209.

Massachusetts. Cherry v. Sprague, 187 Mass. 113, 105 Am. St. Rep. 381, 67 L. R. A. 33, 72 N. E. 456.

Mississippi. Clifton v. Bank, 75 Miss. 929, 23 So. 394.

Montana. Bank v. Fuqua, 11 Mont. 285, 28 Am. St. Rep. 461, 14 L. R. A 588, 28 Pac. 291.

Nebraska. Stark v. Olsen, 44 Neb. 646. 63 N. W. 37.

Oklahoma. Potts v. Crudup, 48 Okla. 124, L. R. A. 1916B, 672, 150 Pac. 170.

This is true under the Negotiable Instruments Law. Lundean v. Hamilton (Ia.), 159 N. W. 163; Potts v. Crudup. 48 Okla. 124, L. R. A. 1916B. 672, 150 Pac. 170.

The Negotiable Instruments Law does not make such provisions legal if the general policy of that jurisdiction renders them illegal. Raleigh County Bank v. Poteet, - \V. Va. - , L. R. A. 1915B, 928, 82 S. E. 332.

2 Montgomery First National Bank v. Slaughter, 98 Ala. 602, 39 Am. St. Rep. 88, 14 So. 545; Dorsey v. Wolff, 142 111. 589, 34 Am. St. Rep. 99, 18 L. R. A. 428, 32 N. E. 495; Shenandoah National Bank v. Marsh, 89 Ia. 273, 48 Am. St. Rep. 381, 56 N. W. 458

3 0ppenheimer v. Bank, 97 Tenn. 19, 56 Am. St. Rep. 778, 33 L. R. A. 767, 36 S. W. 705.

4 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; Cherry v. Sprague, 187 Mass. 113, 105 Am. St. Rep. 381, 67 L. R. A. 33, 72 N. E. 456; Salisbury v. Stewart, 15 Utah 308. 62 Am. St. Rep. 934, 49 Pac. 777.

5 Maynard v. Mier, 85 Ind. 317; Witherspoon v. Musselman, 77 Ky. (14 Bush) 214, 29 Am. Rep. 404; Chandler v. Kennedy, 8 S. D. 56, 65 N. W. 439.

See also, Raleigh County Bank v. Poteet, 74 W. Va. 511, L. R. A. 1915B, 928. 82 S. E. 332.

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.

6 Maine. Roads v. Webb, 91 Me. 406, 64 Am. St. Rep. 246, 40 Atl. 128.