Legal Opinion · Concurrence

National City Bank v. Erskine & Sons, Inc.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided January 21, 1953No. 32968Published

1ConcurrenceStewart, J.

I concur in the syllabus and in the judgment, although I do not agree that the insecurity clause in the mortgage is not incorporated in the note. I am in accord with the language in Beutel’s Brannan Negotiable Instruments Law (7 Ed.), 276, where it is stated:

“A note payable at a fixed date but with a provision that ‘this note shall become due and payable on demand at the option of the payee, when it deems itself insecure,’ is not negotiable. The word ‘contingency’ refers to contingency as to time, though it may also refer to other contingencies. First State Bank of Cheyenne v. Barton, 129…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Puget Sound State Bank v. Washington Paving Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1917
  2. Dart National Bank v. BurtonMichigan Supreme Court · 1932
  3. First State Bank v. BartonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1928

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API