762 HARVARD LAW REVIEW Convertible Instruments Negotiable notes and bonds often provide that the holder may at his option, upon surrender of the instrument, receive instead of money certificates of stock or other securities. Thus Anglo-French notes are convertible into long-time bonds. If the conversion privilege may be exercised before maturity, it is an acceleration provision, similar to the holder's option to demand money and equally valid.^^ The time is clearly certain. The promise is not for "an act in addition to the payment of money," but incidental, and allowed by common law and the Negotiable Instruments Law.^^ The promise to deUver securities, though not in itself a negotiable instrument since not performed by the pajonent of money, acquires the negotiabiHty of the principal obligation, by analogy with the principle that the security follows the debt. There can be no doubt that the bondholder can enforce the conversion privilege in his own name,^° and mercantile custom certainly makes him free from days after demanded, or upon a notification of thirty days in any newspaper printed in Hartford." This provision also was held not to impair negotiability, Button, J., dissenting. It is doubtful whether the acts of acceleration are incidental to the collec- tion of the instnunent, within the first principle of this article. However, a promise to pay on demand after six months' notice has been held a note, Walker v. Roberts, Carr. & Marsh, 590 (1842); White v. Wadhams, 170 N. W. 60 (Mich., 1918, N. I. L.); 1 Ames Cas. Bill and Notes, 88, note; but see 2 Ames, Ibid., 831-23. Demand of payment by advertisement may perhaps be justified by the analogy of bonds, which are frequently redeemed by the obUgor after advertisement. Union Cattle Co. v. In- ternational Trust Co., 149 Mass. 492, 21 N. E..962 (1889). See, also, Stillwell v. Craig, 58 Mo. 24 (1874). If the advertisement renders the note due in Protection Insurance Co. ti. BiU, as against a maker ignorant thereof, is the note afterwards overdue as regards a subsequent piurchaser who never saw the advertisement?
- Hotchkiss V. National Banks, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 354 (1874); Loomis v. Chicago, M.
& St. P. Ry. Co., 102 Fed. 233 (C. C. A. 2d, 1900); Lisman v. Milwaukee, L. S. & W. Ry. Co., 161 Fed. 472, 475 (Wis. 1908), setnble. Hodges v. Shuler, 22 N. Y. 114 (i860); Welch V. Sage, 47 N. Y. 143 (1872); Denney v. Cleveland and Pittsburg R. R. Co., 28 Ohio St. 108 (1875).
- ' See note 48; also cases without acceleration provision. Vermilye v. Adams Ex-
press Co., 21 Wall. (U.S.) 138 (i874);Dinsmoref. Duncan, 57 N.Y. 573(1874). N.I.L. §5(4).
- " Dicta in Loomis v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., supra; Hodges v. Shuler, supra;
Welch V. Sage, supra; Denney v. Cleveland & Pittsburg R. R. Co., supra. CorUra, 2 Ames, Cases on Bnxs and Notes, 829-16. Other kinds of incidental provisions are transferable, so that the holder of the nego- tiable instrument can sue in his own name. Power to sell collateral at maturity: Arnold v. Rock River R. R. Co., 5 Duer (N. Y.) 207, 214 (1856), setnble. Waivers of exemption, etc.: Zimmerman v. Anderson, 67 Pa. St. 421 (1871). Power to confess i
