MUST CONTAIN A PROMISE.—Every negotiable instrument must contain words of negotiability. These words are, "to order," "to bearer," "to holder" or their equivalent. "I promise to pay John Jones, $100," and signed "John Smith," is a promissory note, but not a negotiable promissory note, because it lacks the words to "order" or "bearer," and is a document which would, therefore, pass by the law of assignability rather than the law of negotiability. In taking negotiable paper, therefore, it is always important to see whether these words are present. If they are not, the holder will lose the peculiar advantage and rights which the holder in due course acquires by the law of negotiability. A promissory note must contain a promise and a bill of exchange must contain an unconditional order. An I.O.U. for $100 signed "John Jones" is not a promissory note, because there is no promise contained in such a document.
UNCONDITIONAL PROMISE.—All negotiable documents must be payable without reference to any contingency. A note reads: "I promise to pay to the order of John Jones $100 when I attain my twenty-second birthday" and is signed by John Jones, now twenty-one. That is not a good note because the person may not live to be twenty-two. Even if he lives to become twenty-two the note is still non-negotiable, for when it was made the contingency existed. A bill of exchange, regular in form, but adding the expression, "If the Republicans win the next congressional election," is not negotiable. The one exception, as it might appear at first sight, is a negotiable document reading: "I promise to pay to the order of William White six months after death," etc. Such a promise is not contingent. Death will arrive at some time, although it may be uncertain just when. In the other illustrations the republicans might not win the congressional election, and the person might not become twenty-two. Again, all commercial paper must be made payable in money. "I promise to pay to the order of John Jones $100 worth of tobacco," is not negotiable. "I promise to pay to the order of John Jones $100 and fifty pounds of tobacco" is not negotiable. In both cases, the medium of payment is something other than money.
INCEPTION OF THE INSTRUMENT AS AN OBLIGATION.—In our discussion of contracts, we made the statement that a legal intention to make a contract was necessary. The same is true in commercial paper. A man must intend legally to issue a negotiable instrument in order to be liable on one as maker or drawer. Thus, in the case of Walker v. Ebert, 29 Wis. 94, the defendant, a German, unable to read and write English, was induced by the payee to sign an instrument, in the form of a promissory note, relying on the false statement that it was a contract appointing the defendant agent to sell a patent right. It was held that the defendant was not liable. The instrument, though complete in form, was not the defendant's note and the plaintiff acquired nothing by his purchase of the paper.
ILLUSTRATION.—We must contrast this with another situation. Suppose I hand you a paper with a promissory note printed on it, complete in every detail except your signature. I ask you to sign it. You sign the paper, without reading it over or knowing what it is, and give it back to me. I then transfer it to a person who takes it for value, in good faith, etc., or who is, in other words, a holder in due course. The question is, are you liable on such a document? The answer is, "Of course, you are." You may say, "I did not intend to sign a promissory note." The law answers you by saying, "You were careless in signing something which you did not read over, and one is presumed to intend the consequences of his own careless acts." Our German was in a different situation. He was not careless. He could not read English and was obliged to rely upon someone to tell him what the document was, and, granting that he used due care in selecting a responsible person to explain to him the nature of the document, he had done all the law required. Had he been imposed upon, on several previous occasions, by the same person who told him what the document was, and in spite of that, had relied on him to explain this document, then, undoubtedly, the court would have held otherwise and he would have been liable on the ground that he must have intended the consequences of his negligent acts, he being deemed negligent when he trusts a person who had not only misrepresented things to him but had actually defrauded him several times.
DELIVERY.—A note found among the maker's papers, after his death, imposes no obligation either upon him or upon his estate. In other words, in addition to the intentional signing of the document, to complete its validity, there must also have been what we call delivery. This is a passing out of the possession of the maker or drawer, of the document, into the hands of some third party. Delivery may be made in three ways: (1) By intention; (2) By fraud; (3) By negligence.
A VALID DELIVERY NECESSARY.—I hand you my promissory note and you take it. That, of course, is an intentional delivery. You tell me that you have a fine watch which I decide to buy, and I give you my promissory note in payment. Afterwards, upon examining the watch, I find that it is worthless and entirely different from your description. You have secured the note from me in that case by fraud, or there is, as we say, a delivery procured by fraud. I am sitting on a bench in Central Park, and I take out of my pocket a completed promissory note and look at it and place it upon the bench. When I leave I forget it and it stays there until someone comes along and picks it up. That is a delivery by negligence. All these forms of delivery are valid, making the documents good, some in the hands of all parties, others in the hands of the holder in due course only. The N. I. L. is so clear upon this matter that reference must be made to sections 15 and 16. For this reason both of these sections are reproduced here in full:
Section 15. "Where an incomplete instrument has not been delivered it will not, if completed and negotiated, without authority, be a valid contract in the hands of any holder, as against any person whose signature was placed thereon before delivery."
Section 16. "Every contract on a negotiable instrument is incomplete and revocable until delivery of the instrument for the purpose of giving effect thereto. As between immediate parties, and as regards a remote party other than a holder in due course, the delivery, in order to be effectual, must be made either by or under the authority of the party making, drawing, accepting or indorsing, as the case may be; and in such case the delivery may be shown to have been conditional, or for a special purpose only, and not for the purpose of transferring the property in the instrument. But where the instrument is in the hands of a holder in due course, a valid delivery thereof by all parties prior to him so as to make them liable to him is conclusively presumed. And where the instrument is no longer in the possession of a party whose signature appears thereon, a valid and intentional delivery by him is presumed until the contrary is proved."
DISTINGUISHING FEATURES.—It is very important to distinguish between these two sections. Let us take for illustration the famous case of Baxendale v. Bennett, 3 Q.B.Div. 525. Here the defendant wrote his signature as acceptor on several printed blank forms of bills of exchange and left them in a drawer of his desk. The blanks were stolen, filled out, and negotiated to the plaintiff, an innocent purchaser. It was held that the plaintiff could not recover. The reason for this decision is that the document was incomplete and as the Act says: "Where an incomplete instrument has not been delivered it will not, if completed and negotiated, without authority, be a valid contract in the hands of any holder, as against any person whose signature was placed thereon before delivery." On the other hand, if I leave in my safe, checks which I have signed and made out in full and they are payable to bearer, although a thief breaks in and steals the checks from the safe, those documents will be valid in the hands of a holder in due course. The reason here is that although there has been no delivery, either by intention or by fraud or by negligence, nevertheless, the Negotiable Instruments Act has extended this theory of delivery, even further than the law went before the Act was passed, and says that when the document is in the hands of a holder in due course, a delivery is conclusively presumed.
CONSIDERATION.—Another essential in the inception of the instrument is consideration. We have already discussed this topic in the chapter on contracts. We made the statement at the beginning of this chapter that the law of negotiable paper came from the continent of Europe and was grudgingly received by the courts of England. The law of negotiable paper on the continent of Europe did not have any idea of consideration, and this is one reason why the law was reluctantly admitted to the English common law and explains the reason now why we have the doctrine of consideration in negotiable paper. It would not be safe for the student to accept all we have said in regard to consideration in the chapter on contracts and apply it to negotiable paper. The difference is at once apparent when you read Sections 24 and 28 of the Negotiable Instrument Act which read: