A clause providing for an extension of time for a definite period at the option of the maker does not make the contract non-negotiable.1 A provision in a note, by which the sureties agree to be bound in case the principal and the holder agree upon an extension of time, does not render such note non-negotiable.2 A provision to the effect that the sureties, indorsers and guarantors waive presentment for payment and consent to extensions of time, was held to render the instrument non-negotiable under the Negotiable Instruments Law.3 A provision to the effect that the holder may extend payment if he deems proper, if the note is not paid at maturity,4 or that the makers or either of them may extend the note from time to time, and that on such extension the liability of all parties shall be the same as if no extension had been made,5 does not render the instrument non-negotiable. A provision to the effect that the maker and indorser each makes the other his agent, for the purpose of extending the time of payment, makes the instrument non-negotiable.6 A provision to the effect that in case the crop on a certain piece of land shall be worth less than a certain amount, the instrument shall be extended for two years,7 or that payment shall be extended for one year if the crop from a certain piece of land is less than a certain amount,8 does not render such contract non-negotiable, since such time of payment is bound to arrive.

1 Anniston Loan and Trust Co. v. Stickney, 108 Ala. 146, 31 L. R. A. 234, 19 So. 63; National Bank v. Dickinson, 102 Kan. 564, 171 Pac. 636; First National Bank v. Baldwin, 100 Neb. 25, 158 N. W. 371.

See also under the Negotiable Instrument Law, First National Bank v. Stover, 21 N. M. 453, L. R. A. 1916D, 1280, 155 Pac. 905.

2 California. Navajo County Bank v. Dolson, 163 Cal. 485, 41 L. R. A. (N.S.) 787, 126 Pac. 153.

Illinois. Stitzel v. Miller, 250 111. 72, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 412, 34 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1004, 95 N. E. 53.

Kansas. National Bank v. Dickinson, 102 Kan. 564, 171 Pac. 636 (decided under the Negotiable Instruments Law, on the theory that there was nothing in the note to indicate that any one was a surety, and that the clause by which the sureties consented to an extension of time was, therefore, meaningless and inoperative to make the contract non-negotiable).

New Mexico. First National Bank of Stover, 21 N. M. 453, L. R. A. 1916D, 1280, 155 Pac. 905.

North Dakota. First National Bank v. Buttery, 17 N. D. 326, 16 L. R. A. (N.S.) 878, 17 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 52, 116 N. W. 341.

Tennessee. Bank v. White, 136 Tenn. 634, 191 S. W. 332.

3 Cedar Rapids National Bank v. Weber, 180 Ia. 966, L. R. A. 1918A, 432, 164 N. W. 233 [refusing to follow, First National Bank v. Stover, 21 N. M. 453, L. R. A. 1916D, 1286, 155 Pac. 905].

4 Stitzel v. Miller, 250 111. 72, 34 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1004, 95 N. E. 53.

5 Navajo County Bank v. Dolson, 163 Cal. 485, 41 L. R. A. (N.S.) 787, 126 Pac. 153.

6 Rossville State Bank v. Heslet, 84 Kan. 315, 33 L. R. A. (N.S.) 738, 113 Pac. 1052.

7 State Bank v. Bilstad (Ia.), 49 L. R. A. (N.S.) 132, 136 N. W. 204.

A provision making the right to renewal contingent on some specific event has been held to make the contract non-negotiable.9

A general provision for renewal, not for a specific time,10 such as a provision for an extension of time "from time to time,"11 or a clause giving a majority of bondholders the right to waive default in payment,12 makes the time of payment uncertain and destroys negotiability.