The law of negotiable instruments is derived from the law-merchant. The seal is derived from the common law. Accordingly, at common law a sealed instrument could not be negotiable.1 Thus if two guarantors sign, and A adds a seal while B does not, the note is negotiable as to B, but not as to A.2 This rule, however, is no longer in force in many jurisdictions.3 The Negotiable Instruments Law provides specifically that the negotiable character of an instrument, is not affected by the fact that it bears a seal.4

A corporate seal does not destroy negotiability, since it is merely the common-law form whereby the corporation indicates its assent. To hold that it destroyed negotiability would be to hold that a corporation could not issue negotiable paper.5 "The attaching of a corporate seal bears a strong analogy to the signature of a natural person and is its substantial equivalent."6 A seal which may be treated as surplusage does not destroy negotiability.7 Some authorities, however, hold that a corporation seal makes the instrument a specialty and destroys negotiability.8

4 Connecticut. McCaskill v. Bank, 60 Conn. 300, 25 Am. St. Rep. 323, 13 L. R. A. 737, 22 Atl. 568.

Maine. White v. Cushing, 88 Me. 339, 51 Am. St. Rep. 402, 32 L. R. A. 590, 34 Atl. 164.

Massachusetts. Pierce v. Bank, 129 Mass. 425, 37 Am. Rep. 371.

New York. Kummel v. Bank, 127 N. Y. 488, 13 L. R. A. 786, 28 N. E. 398.

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

1 Conine v. Ry., 3 Houst. (Del.) 288,

89 Am. Dec. 230; Brown v. Jordhal, 32 Minn. 135, 50 Am. Rep. 560, 19 N. W. 650; Osborn v. Kistler, 35 O. S. 99; McLaughlin v. Braddy, 63 S. Car. 433,

90 Am. St. Rep. 681, 41 S. E. 523; StevenRon v. Bethea, 68 S. Car. 246, 47 S. E. 71.

2 McLaughlin v. Braddy, 63 S. Car. 433, 90 Am. St. Rep. 681, 41 S. E. 523.

3 Williams v. Peninsular Grocery Co., - Fla. - , 75 So. 517; Porter v. Mc-Collum, 15 Ga. 528.

4 Section 6 of the Negotiable Instruments Law.

5 United States. Mercer County v. Hacket, 68 U. S. (1 Wall.) 83, 17 L. ed. 548; Chicago, etc., Co. v. Bank, 136 U. S. 268, 34 L. ed. 349; Kneeland v. Lawrence, 140 U. S. 209, 35 L. ed. 492.

Alabama. Reid v. Bank, 70 Ala. 199.

Florida. Williams v. Peninsular Grocery Co., - Fla. - , 75 So. 517.

New York. Chase National Bank v. Faurot, 149 N. Y. 532, 35 L. R. A. 605, 44 N. E. 164.

Ohio. Pittsburgh, etc., Ry. v. Lynde, 55 O. S. 23; 44 N. E. 596.

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

South Dakota. Landauer v. Improvement Co., 10 S. D. 205 72 N. W. 467.

A seal is not necessary to the validity of a negotiable instrument.9