Court Opinion

ID: 6408265
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-06-25 11:50:38.74221+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:51:17.090737
License: Public Domain

Shaw, C. J.
The true test of the negotiability of a note seems to be, whether the undertaking of the promisor is to pay the amount at all events, at some time which must certainly come, and not out of a particular fund, or upon a contingent event. If it were payable on a contingency, or out of a particular fund, it would not be negotiable. This note, we think, was payable by the promisor at all events, and within, a certain limited time. The note is obscurely written and ungrammatical. But we think the meaning was this; that the signer, for value received in the purchase of property, promised to pay Pero or bearer the sum named, as soon as the termination of the coming season, and sooner, if the amount could be sooner realized out of the fund. Such reference to the sale of the property was not to fix the fund from which it was to be paid, but the time of payment. The undertaking to pay was absolute, and did not depend on the fund. So as to the time, whatever time may be understood as the “ coming season ; ” whether harvest time or the end of the year, it must come by mere lapse of time, and that must be the ultimate limit of the time of payment.
Exceptions overruled.