A provision to the effect that payment should be accelerated on default either in payment of interest, or in payment of an installment of the principal, has been held in many jurisdictions not to render the contract non-negotiable.1 A note was held not to be rendered non-negotiable by the fact that the mortgage contained a clause under which the note might become payable within sixty days after the mortgagor permitted the taxes to become delinquent or permitted the property to be sold for taxes or failed to pay interest.2

In other jurisdictions it has been held, before the enactment of the Negotiable Instruments Law, that such provision rendered the instrument non-negotiablc.3 Where the Negotiable Instruments Law is not in effect, such a provision has been held to render the instrument non-negotiable.4 This rule, however, does not apply to an instrument by the terms of which the principal is due before the first installment of interest is due.5 A clause in a mortgage, referred to in a note, making the note due on failure to pay taxes and assessments for thirty days after they were due, was held to make the note non-negotiable.6 A similar clause giving the holder of the note the option of declaring it due on default in paying taxes and assessments, does not destroy negotiability.7 A clause in a mortgage, not referred to in the note, giving the mortgagee the option of declaring the whole debt due on any default, was held not to affect the note, and hence to leave it negotiable.8 A provision making a note due at once on default in interest can not affect negotiability if, by the terms of the instrument, the principal is due before such interest period.9

4 American National Bank v. Paper Co., 19 R. I. 149, 61 Am. St. Rep. 746, 29 L. R. A. 103, 32 Atl. 305.

5 Fisher v. O'Hanlon, 93 Neb. 529, L. R. A. 1918C, 727, 141 N. W. 157.

6 Mahoney v. Fitzpatrick, 133 Mass. 151, 43 Am. Rep. 502.

7 Bell v. Riggs, 34 Okla. 834, 41 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1111, 127 Pac. 427; Lambert v. Harrison, - Okla. - ,171 Pac. 45.

1 United States. Chicago R. Equipment Co. v. Merchants' Bank, 136 U. 8. 268, 34 L. ed. 349; De Hass v. Dibert, 70 Fed. 227, 30 L. R. A. 189.

Illinois. Hunter v. Clarke, 184 111. 158, 75 Am. St. Rep. 160, 56 N. E. 297

Kansas. Clark v. Skeen, 61 Kan. 526, 78 Am. St. Rep. 337, 49 L. R. A. 190, 60 Pac. 327.

Michigan. Markey v. Corey. 108 Mich. 184, 62 Am. St. Rep. 698, 36 L. R. A. 117, 66 N. W. 493.

New Jersey. Mackintosh v. Gibbs. 81 N. J. L. 577, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 163. 80 Atl. 554.

North Dakota. Hollinshead v. Stuart. 8 N. D. 35, 42 L. R. A. 659, 77 N. \Y. 89.

Oregon. United States National Bank v. Floss, 38 Or. 68, 84 Am. St. Rep. 752, 62 Pac. 751.

South Dakota. Merrill v. Hurley, 6 S. D. 592, 55 Am. St. Rep. 859, 62 N. W. 958.

Wisconsin. Thorp v. Mindeman, 123 Wis. 149, 107 Am. St. Rep. 1003, 68 L. R. A. 146, 101 N. W. 417.

So with a contract that if the mortgagor does not pay insurance premiums, the mortgagee may declare the debt due. Consterdine v. Moore, 65 Neb. 291, 91 N. W. 399.

2Lundean v. Hamilton (la.), 159 N. W. 163.

Under the Negotiable Instruments Law, a provision for accelerating the maturity of a series of notes in case of the default in payment of any one of such series, or in case of default in interest, does not render the instrument non-negotiable.10 Under the Negotiable Instruments Law, however, a provision to the effect that the payee may accelerate maturity of the entire indebtedness for default in the payment of any installment thereof, has been held to render the contract non-negotiable, and the Negotiable Instruments Law has been held not to apply, on the theory that it applies only to negotiable instruments.11

3 Bell v. Riggs, 34 Okla. 834, 41 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1111, 127 Pac. 427.

4 Meyer v. Weber, 133 Cal. 681, 65 Pac. 1110; Wetzel v. Cale, 175 Cal. 208, 165 Pac. 692.

5 Glenn v. Rice, 174 Cal. 269, 162 Pac. 1020.

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

7Lundean v. Hamilton (la.), 159 N. W. 163; Wilson v. Campbell, 110 Mich. 580, 35 L. R. A. 544, 68 N. W. 278.

8 White v. Miller, 52 Minn. 367, 19 L. R. A. 673, 54 N. W. 736; Westlake v. Cooper, - Okla. - , L. R. A. 1918D, 522, 171 Pac. 859.

9 Glenn v. Rice, 174 Cal. 269, 162 Pac. 1020.

10 Taylor v. American National Bank, 63 Fla. 631, Ann. Cas. 1914A, ' 309, 57 So. 678; Lundean v. Hamilton, (Ia.), 159 N. W. 163; White v. Hatcher, 135 Tenn. 609, 188 S. W. 61; Thorp v. Mindeman, 123 Wis. 149, 107 Am. St. Rep. 1003, 68 L. R. A. 146, 101 N. W. 417.

11 Western Farquhar Machinery Co. v. Burnett, 82 Or. 174, 161 Pac. 384 [following, Reynolds v. Vint, 73 Or. 528, 144 Pac. 526].