This section is from the book "The Law Of Contracts", by William Herbert Page. Also available from Amazon: Commercial Contracts: A Practical Guide to Deals, Contracts, Agreements and Promises.
A provision which authorizes the maker of the instrument to declare it to be due and payable within a certain specified time, does not make such instrument non-negotiable.1 A note due on or before a certain date,2 or within a certain period,3 or in a certain time, the maker to have the option of paying in a shorter period,4 or to have the option of paying any part of the debt that he might wish, at any time before maturity,5 is negotiable. In all these cases the time of payment, though not ascertainable when the instrument is given, is bound to arrive eventually.
5 Empire National Bank v. High Grade Oil Refining Co., 260 Pa. St. 255, 103 Atl. 602.
6 Kobey v. Hoffman, 229 Fed. 486, 143 C. C. A. 554. [Decided under Missouri law, and refusing to follow Hol-liday State Bank v. Hoffman, 85 Kan. 71, 35 L. R. A. (N.S.) 390, Ann. Cas. 1912D 1, 116 Pac. 239, which had held these same notes to be non-negotiable; the Federal court refusing to follow a Kansas decision as to the law of Missouri] .
See also, Kennedy v. Broderick, 216 Fed. 137, L. R. A. 1915B, 472.
7 Empire National Bank v. High Grade Oil Refining Co., 260 Pa. St. 255, 103 Atl. 602.
A provision to the effect that if the collateral security depreciates in value the maker will deliver additional security or the note shall mature at once, does not render the note non-negotiable, at least if it is written beside the maker's signature thereto and is not found in the body of the note. Kennedy v. Broderick. 216 Fed. 137, L. R. A. 1915B, 472.
8 Western Farquhar Machinery Co. v. Burnett, 82 Or. 174, 161 Pac. 384.
1 Fisher v. O'Harilon, 93 Neb. 529, L. R. A. 1918C, 727, 141 N. W. 157.
2 Illinois. Hunter v. Clarke, 184 111. 158, 75 Am. St. Rep. 160, 56 N. E. 297.
Missouri. First National Bank v. Skeen, 101 Mo. 683. 11 L. R. A. 748, 14 S. W. 732.
Nebraska. Fisher v. O'Hanlon, 03 Neb. 529, L. R. A. I918C, 727, 141 N. W. 157.
Ohio. Jordan v. Tate, 19 O. S. 586.
Pennsylvania. Albertson v. Laugh-lin, 173 Pa. St. 525. 51 Am. St. Rep. 777, 34 Atl. 216.
So a clause making a note due in four years payable on sale or removal of timber on the land for which such note was given, before the end of such time does not destroy negotiability. Joergenson v. Joergenson, 28 War.h. 477, 92 Am. St. Rep. 888, 68 Pac. 913.
See to the same effect, Charlton v. Reed. 61 Ia. 166, 47 Am. Rep. 808, 16 N. W. 64; Walker v. Woolen, 54 Ind. 164, 23 Am. Rep. 639.
Contra, First National Bank of Port Huron v. Carson, 60 Mich. 432, 27 N. W. 589.
3 Leader v. Plante, 95 Me. 339, 85 Am. St. Rep. 415. 50 Atl. 54,
Some authorities, however, treat contracts for the payment of money on or before a certain date as non-negotiable.6 A provision for permitting partial payments up to a certain amount and for rebating interest from the date of such payment, seems to be regarded as making the instrument non-negotiable.7