In order to be negotiable it is generally said that the instrument must provide only for unconditional payment. If some event which may or may not happen is a condition precedent to the payment, the contract is not negotiable.1 Thus payment out of a particular fund,2 when certain work is done,3 if the maker enjoyed the use of certain premises under his lease;4 or six months after date, "if elected county commissioner";5 or if the payee satisfies a certain mortgage;6 or in case a given contract is not performed;7 or when Congress shall confirm a certain land grant; 8 or in case the earnings of the promisor exceed the cost of necessary repairs,9 is in each case conditional and the instrument is non-negotiable.

Michigan. Altaian v. Rittershofer, 68 Mich. 287, 13 Am. St. Rep. 341, 36 N. W. 74.

Oklahoma. Clevenger v. Lewis, 20 Okla. 837, 16 L. R. A. (N.S.) 410, 95 Pac. 230.

South Carolina. Sylvester Bleckley Co. v. Alewine, 48 S. Car. 308, 37 L. R. A. 86, 26 S. E. 609.

South Dakota. Baird v. Vines, 18 S. D. 52, 99 N. W. 89.

7 Adams v. Seaman, 82 Cal. 636, 7 L. R. A. 224, 23 Pac. 53; Findlay v. Pott, 131 Cal. 385, 63 Pac. 694; Meyer v. Weber, 133 Cal. 681, 65 Pac. 1110. (Statute now contains an express provision in favor of attorney fees. Civil Code of Cal. Sec. 3088. See Glenn v. Rice, 174 Cal. 269, 162 Pac. 1020.) Stadler v. Bank, 22 Mont. 190, 74 Am. St. Rep. 582, 56 Pac. 111. (Contrary rule before statute. Bank v. Fuqua, 11 Mont. 285, 28 Am. St. Rep. 461, 11 L. R. A. 588, 28 Pac. 291); Salisbury v. Stewart, 15 Utah 308, 62 Am. St. Rep. 934, 49 Pac. 777; Lippincott v. Rich, 22 Utah 196, 61 Pac. 526.)

8 First National Bank v. Babcock, 94 Cal. 96, 28 Am. St. Rep. 94, 28 L. R. A. 94, 29 Pac. 415.

9 Kendall v. Parker, 103 Cal. 319, 42 Am. St. Rep. 117, 37 Pac. 401.

10 Nicely v. Bank, 15 Ind. App. 563, 57 Am. St. Rep. 245, 44 N. E. 572.

Where held to mean attorney's fees. Montgomery v. Crossthwait, 90 Ala. 553, 24 Am. St. Rep. 832, 12 L. R. A. 140, 8 So. 498.

Contra, of a provision for the payment of "other costs" in addition to attorney's fees. Johnson v. Schar, 9 S. D. 536, 70 N. W. 838, Baird v. Vines, 18 S. D. 52, 99 N. W. 89.

1 California. Wetzel v. Cale, 175 Cal. 208, 165 Pac. 692.

Connecticut. National Savings Bank v. Cable, 73 Conn. 568, 48 Atl. 428.

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

Louisiana. Continental Bank & Trust Co. v. Times Publishing Co., 142 La. 209, L. R. A. 1918B, 632, 76 So. 612.

Massachusetts. Jackman v. Bow-ker, 61 Mass. (4 Met.) 235.

New Mexico. Joseph v. Catron, 13 N. M. 202. 1 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1120, 81 Pac. 439.

New York. Shaver v. Telegraph Co., 57 N. Y. 459.

Pennsylvania. Iron City National Bank v. McCord, 139 Pa. St. 52, 23 Am. St. Rep. 166, 11 L. R. A. 559, 21 Atl. 143.

Wisconsin. Bank v. Kurth, 167 Wis. 43, 166 N. W. 658.

2 Alabama. People's Bank v. Moore, - Ala. - , 78 So. 789.

A provision for payment on return of the instrument properly indorsed, requires nothing more than the law imposes and does not destroy negotiability.10 A memorandum on the face of a check, "to be retained," does not make such check conditional with reference to the drawee; and accordingly such words do not keep it from being negotiable.11 A provision that interest on a debt due on demand shall be paid only if demand is not made within a certain time, does not make the contract non-negotiable.12

Arkansas. Rector v. Strauss, 134 Ark. 347, 203 S. W. 1024.

Connecticut. National Savings Bank v. Cable, 73 Conn. 568, 48 Atl. 428.

Nebraska. Hoagland v. Erck, 11 Neb. 580, 10 N. W. 498.

New Hampshire. Harriman v. Sanborn, 43 N. H. 128.

New York. Munger v. Shannon, 61 N. Y. 251.

Wisconsin. Woodward v. Smith, 104 Wis. 365, 80 N. W. 440; Bank v. Kurth, 167 Wis. 43, 166 N. W. 658.

Wyoming. Thompson v. Mercantile Co., 10 Wyom. 86, 66 Pac. 505.

So of a contract to pay out of the first money received from the sale of certain realty. Rector v. Strauss, 134 Ark. 347, 203 S. W. 1024.

If the instrument imposes a general liability, a direction as to the fund out of which the drawer is to be reimbursed does not destroy negotiability. People's Bank v. Moore, - Ala. - , 78 So. 789.

If an instrument imposes a general liability upon a bank, the fact that it is charged against its sayings account does not render the contract non-negotiable. White v. Wadhams, - Mich. - . 170 N. W. 60.

3 Chicago, etc., Bank v. Trust Co., 190 111. 404, 83 Am. St. Rep. 138, 60

N. E. 586; Chandler v. Carey, 64 Mich. 237, 8 Am. St. Rep. 814, 31 N. W. 309; Fletcher v. Thompson, 55 N. H. 308; Home Bank v. Drumgoole, 109 N. Y. 63, 15 N. E. 747.

4 Jennings v. Bank, 13 Colo. 417, 16 Am. St. Rep. 210, 22 Pac. 777.

5 Specht v. Beindorf, 56 Neb. 553, 42 L. R. A. 429, 76 N. W. 1059. (This is also illegal. See Sec. 889.

6 Hayes v. Gwin, 19 Ind. 19.

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

8 Joseph v. Catron, 13 N. M. 202, 1 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1120, 81 Pac. 439.

9 Bank v. Kurth, 167 Wis. 43, 166 N. W. 658.

10 United States. Miller v. Austen, 54 U. S. (13 How.) 218, 14 L. ed. 119.

Indiana. Drake v. Markle, 21 Ind. 433, 83 Am. Dec. 358.

Maine. Hatch v. Bank, 94 Me. 348, 80 Am. St. Rep. 401, 47 Atl. 908.

Nebraska. Kirkwood v. Bank, 40 Neb. 484, 42 Am. St. Rep. 683, 24 L. R. A. 444, 58 N. W. 1016.

New York. Frank v. Wessels, 64 N. Y. 155.

Contra, Hubbard v. Mosely, 77 Mass. (11 Gray), 170, 71 Am. Dec. 698.

11 Robert & Co. v. Marsh [1915], 1 K. B. 42.

A provision in an instrument which makes its payment conditional upon the performance of another contract, or subject to the terms of such contract, prevents it from being negotiable.13