First State Savings Bank v. Russell

It is conceded that the maker of the following instrument has a good defense against the payee and that plaintiff is a- bona fide holder for valuable consideration, before maturity and without notice of defense. The question is whether the instrument is negotiable. Defendant contends that it is not negotiable because it is a title-retaining contract, the amount payable is not certain (negotiable instruments law, 2 Comp. Laws 1915, § 6042), and it provides other engagements than the payment of money (2 Oomp. Laws 1915, § 6046), on account of the provision for insurance.

“Birmingham, Mich., May…