754 HARVARD LAW REVIEW duration of this particular existence. And the value of paper with uncertain maturity is rendered still more speculative by the objec- tions about to be considered, which make it possible that the prom- ise though unconditional in terms will never be performed because of unknown defenses to which the purchaser will be subject when he sues. . 2. If the time of payment is uncertain it may have already oc- curred. If so, the paper is in fact overdue and affected by the equitable defenses of prior parties. On business paper, maturity should be definite, so that any one who buys after maturity will do so with eyes open. 3. If the maturity has occurred six years before (less in some states), the Statute of Limitations will defeat recovery, even if there are no other defenses. The statute may have run before the purchase or before the holder can ascertain the date of the critical event, such as some one's death, which fixed maturity. 4. Even if maturity has not yet arrived, it is essential for the holder to know in advance just when it will come, so that he may present the instrument to the primary party and give notice of dishonor to the secondary parties in order to make them liable to him. If a note is payable at the death of the maker's father, he must, to be safe, maintain telegraphic communication with his deathbed.^® If it is payable at the end of the war, does this mean November 11, 19 18, or the signing of the peace treaty, or its rati- fication by the Senate, or the President's proclamation of peace? The holder's failure to determine the critical date correctly and act at once will forfeit his rights against indorsers.^^ 5. A less serious difficulty is, that the obligors on the instrument ought to know the time of payment definitely, so that the primary party may have funds ready as the day approaches, and the second- ary parties may watch him and protect themselves if he appears unprepared to pay. Good business poHcy requires that men shall foresee the maturity of their obligations and adjust their affairs accordingly. 6. Because of these specific objections, the paper is unsuited to ^* Yet such instruments are always held negotiable. Colehan v. Cooke, Willes, 393 (1743); McClenathan v. Davis, 243 111. 87, 90 N. E. 265 (1909); i Daniel, op. cU. § 46 note 22. " For cases upholding Civil War notes, see i Daniel, op. cii., § 49.
