Thomas v. . De Moss

CONNOR, J. At the date of its issue, the bond sued on in this action was in writing and signed by the maker; it contained an unconditional promise by the maker to pay a sum certain in money; it was payable at a fixed time; and' it was payable to bearer. It was, therefore, under the law of this State (0. S., 2982), a negotiable instrument, both as to the maker and as to holders in due course, unless certain provisions appearing in its face, or incorporated therein by reference to the deed of trust by which it was secured, destroyed its negotiability, both as to the maker and as to holders. If the bond was a negotiable instrument in its origin, in the absence of a restrictive endorsement by a holder, it continued a negotiable instrument until it was discharged by payment or otherwise. C. S., 3028. Johnson v. Lassiter, 155 N. C., 47, 71 S. E., 25, Wettlaufer v. Baxter, 137 Ky., 362, 125 S. W. 741, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.), 804. In the last cited case it is said: “When a paper is started on its journey into the commercial world, it should retain to the end the character given to it in the beginning, and written in its face. If it was intended to be a negotiable instrument, and was so written, it should continue to be one. If it was intended to be a nonnegotiable instrument, and was so written, it should so remain. Then every one who puts his name on it, as well as every one w.ho discounts or purchases it, will need only to read it to know what it is, and what his rights and liabilities are.” The defendant contends that the bond sued on was not a negotiable instrument at the date of its issue, because it is provided on its face, (1) that the amount of the bond shall be payable to bearer, or if registered, to the registered holder only, and (2) that the time for its payment may be extended. Neither of these contentions can be sustained. The right to have the bond registered is given to a holder of the bond for his protection, and may be exercised or not in his discretion, without affecting the liability of the maker. One who has acquired the bond as a holder in due course does not forfeit his rights as such holder against the maker by the registration, at his option, of the bond. *651 An extension of tbe time for tbe payment of tbe bond can be granted only upon tbe application of tbe maker, and tben in tbe discretion of tbe trustee in tbe deed of trust by wbicb tbe bond is secured, and witb tbe consent of tbe bolder of tbe bond. Unless sucb extension be granted, tbe bond is payable at a fixed time according to its tenor. Tbe defendant further contends tbat tbe bond was not a negotiable instrument because its amount is not a sum certain, by reason of tbe provisions in tbe deed of trust witb respect to sums paid for taxes or insurance premiums, wbicb are incorporated in tbe bond by reference to tbe deed of trust. Tbis contention cannot be sustained. Sums paid by tbe bolders of tbe bonds or by tbe trustee for taxes or for insurance premiums, are not added to tbe amount due on tbe bond.' It is provided only tbat sucb sums shall be deemed principal money and shall be secured by tbe deed of trust. Tbe amount due on the bond, wbicb is certain and not contingent, is not affected by.tbe provisions in tbe deed of trust witb respect to sums paid for taxes or for insurance premiums. There is no error in tbe judgment. It is Affirmed.