Court Opinion

ID: 7099453
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-24 12:14:19.61206+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:13:21.768306
License: Public Domain

Servers, J.
^YNOTE?0’ The only question to be determined is whether the instrument sued on is negotiable. The appellee insists it is not, because of the italicized words. The appellant insists the instrument is not payable out of a certain fund, and is payable at the expiration of *97two years from its date, if not sooner, and is, therefore, negotiable.
We think the true construction is that the maker was the agent of the payee for the sale of something, and if he realized sufficient funds from such sales the amount specified was to be paid within one year. Payment during such time was to be made only on condition that the necessary funds were realized. . This clearly implies the instrument was to be paid out of a particular fund, and for this reason, and because payable only on the happening of a condition, it was not negotiable during the period aforesaid. It is true it is payable absolutely at the expiration of two years. But we think it must have been negotiable when executed, and continuously from that time, or not at all.
No adjudicated case to which our attention has been called is precisely like this. The nearest approach to it is Cotta v. Buck, 7 Met., 588. It is difficult to draw a sharp distinction between the two cases. We shall not, therefore, make the attempt, but determine the case at bar upon principle, as we deem right.
Affirmed.