In other jurisdictions it is held that the stipulation is valid, but that it makes the note uncertain in amount and thereby destroys its negotiability. Adams v. Seaman, 82 Cal. 637; Garretson v. Purdy, 3 Dak. 17s; Maryland etc. Co v. Newman, 60 Bid. 584; Bowie v. Hall, 69 Md. 434; Jones v. Radatz, 27 Minn. 240; Johnston Co. v. Clark, 30 Minn. 308; McCoy v. Green, 83 Mo. 626; First Nat, Bank v. Bynum, 84 N. C. 24: Johnson v. Speer, 92 Pa 227; Carroll County Savings Bank v. Strother, 28 S. C. 504: Peterson v. Stoughton Bank, 78 Wis. 113. And see Biker v. Sprague Co. 14 R. I. 402, 405.

A third view, taken by some courts, is that the stipulation is penal and being, therefore, void does not destroy the negotiability of the note. Boozer v. Anderson,

42 Ark. 167; Gaar v. Louisville etc. Co. 11 Bush, 180; Witherspoon v. Musselman,

14 Bush, 214; Dow v. Updike, 11 Neb. 95. (Sec Roberts v. Snow, 27 Neb. 425.) Kimball v. Moir, 15 Ore. 427.

In Michigan though the stipulation is void, Wright v. Traver, 73 Mich. 493, the negotiability of the note is destroyed. Altman v. Fowler, 70 Mich. 57; Second Bank v. wheeler, 75 Mich. 546.

A statement in a note that it was given in payment for a specified chattel, the title to which is to remain in the payee until the note is paid, is held not to destroy negotiability in Chicago Ry. Equipment Co. v. Merchants' Bank, 136 I. S. 268; Howard v. Simpkins, 69 (la."773; Newton Co. v. Diers, 10 Neb. 284; W. W. Kimball Co. v. Mellon, 80 Wis. 133. But contra are South Bend Works v. Paddock, 37 Kan. 510; Sloan v. McCarty, 134 Mass 245; Bannister v. Rouss, 44 Mich. 428. See also Baldwin v. Crow, 86 Ky. 679; Monaghan v. Longfellow, 82 Me. 419; Chemical Co.

V. Johnson, 98 N. C. 123.

A memorandum on a note stating that it was given as collateral security has been held to destroy negotiability. Costelo v. Crowell, 127 Mass. 293; American Nat. Bank v. Sprague, 14 R.I. 410. See also Gibson v. Hawkins, 69 Ga. 354.

2 The signature to a note may be made with a printed facsimile. Pennington v.

As the negotiable bill or note is intended to represent and take the place of money, it must be payable in money, and not in goods;(f) and although it has been held in this country that it might be made payable in bank-bills which were at the time the note was made universally current as cash, (g) the weight of authority and reason is against this, and in favor of the English rule which requires them to be payable in money. (h)l The * payment must not rest upon any contingency or uncertain event. (i) Hence a draft on a public officer, as such, is not negotiable, because it is presumably drawn against a contingent public fund. (j) But if the event must happen, an uncertainty as to the time of its happening does not prevent the bill or note from being negotiable. (k)1 And if the bill direct the drawee to credit the payee with so much cash, it is a good bill.(/)

(f) Jerome v. Whitney, 7 Johns, 321; Thomas v. Roosa, 7 Johns. 461; Peay v. Pickett, 1 Nott & McC. 254; Rhodes v. Lindlev,3 Hamm. 51: Atkinson v. Manks, 1 Cowen, 691, 707; Clark v. King, 2 Mass. 524; Bunker v. Athearn, 35 Me. 364; Wingo v. McDowell, 8 Rich. L. 446. So the bill or note, in order to be negotiable, must contain a promise for the payment of money only, and not for the payment of money and the performance of some other act. Austin v. Burns, 16 Barb. 643. Therefore, where a note contained a promise to deliver up horses and a wharf, and also to pay money at a particular day, it was held not to be within the statute. Martin v. Chauntry, 2 Stra. 1271. A note, however, need not contain the words, "promise to pay," in order to come within the statute; it is sufficient if it contain words which, upon a reasonable construction, import a promise to pay. Therefore, where a note contained a promise by the maker to be accountable to A or order for .£100, it was held to be within the statute. Morris v. Lee, 2 Ld. Raym. 1396, 8 Mod. 362, 1 Stra. 629. And so where the note set forth in the declaration was, " I acknowledge myself to be indebted to A in £ -, to be paid on demand for value received; " on demurrer to the declaration, the court, after solemn argument, held that this was a good note within the statute, the words "to be paid," amounting to a promise to pay; observing, that the same words in a lease would amount to a covenant to pay rent. Casborne v. Dutton, Selw. N. P. 395. See also Hyne v, Dewdney, 11 E. L. & E. 400, n.; 2 Foster (N. H.), 183.

(g) Keith v. Jones, 9 Johns. 120; Judah v. Harris, 19 Johns. 144; Swetland v. Creigh, 15 Ohio, 118; Williams v. Sims, 22 Ala. 512; Barnes v. Gorman, 9 Rich. L. 297; Butler v. Paine, 8 Minn. 324. In Iowa, a note payable in articles of personal property is negotiable by statute. See Riggs v. Price, 3 Greene (Ia.), 334.

(h) McCormick v. Trotter, 10 S. & R. 94; Gray v. Donahoe, 4 Watts, 400; Has-brook v, Palmer, 2 McLean, 10; Fry v. Rousseau, 3 McLean, 106; Smith v. Philadelphia Bank, 14 Penn. St. 525; Lowe v. Bliss, 34 Ill. 168; 3 Kent, Com. 75; Daniel, Negot. Inst. § 56. But an instrument promising to pay a sum of money, to one or order, with interest, as per interest warrants attached, or upon its surrender before due, to issue stock in exchange therefor, has been held to be a negotiable note. Hodges v. Shuler, 22 N. Y. (8 Smith) 114. See also London S. F. Society v. Hagerstown Savings Bank, 36 Penn. St. 489, where a certificate of deposit, payable in currency, was held not to be negotiable.

(0 Alexander v. Thomas, 2 E. L. & E. 286; Storm v. Stirling, 28 E. L. & E. 108; Austin v. Burns, 16 Barb. 643;

Baehr, 48 Cal. 565. In Brook v. Hook, L. R. 6 Ex. 89, it was declared, by a divided court, that a forged signature cannot be ratified. To the same effect are Henry v. Heeb, 114 Ind. 275; Smith v. Tramel, 68 Ia. 488; Wilson v. Hayes, 40 Minn. 531; Workman v. Wright, 33 Ohio St. 405; Shisler v. Vandike, 92 Pa. 447. Contra are Wellington v. Jackson, 121 Mass. 157; Hefner v. Vandolah, 62 Ill. 483. One inducing another, by admitting his signature, to take a bill of exchange, cannot show it to be a forgery. Continental Bank v. Commonwealth Bank, 50 N. Y. 575; Henry v. Heeb and Workman v. Wright, above cited.