788 HARVARD LAW REVIEW ness since 1846," ^^ and the modern promissory note with its care- ful safeguards against insolvency is no longer comparable to a courier without luggage, but rather to an automobile, fitted with every conceivable contrivance to prevent or repair a breakdown on the road.^^ Zechariah Chafee, Jr. Cambridge, Mass. '^ Holliday Bank v. Hoffman, 85 Kan. 71, 77, 116 Pac. 239 (1911). 1^ Space prevents the discussion of two topics closely related to the subject of this article: Incorporation of Mortgages into Notes. — The question whether the reference in a note to a mortgage or trust deed incorporates its acceleration provisions is unsettled. Properly it should not be incorporated unless the note is made subject to its terms. Mere mention is not sufficient. Many cases go fiurther. In this article I have accepted for purposes of my discussion the view of a court that the acceleration provisions of the mortgage formed part of the note. If so, their effect upon its negotiability is the same as if actually written on the note. "Why should the courier who carries his luggage in a trunk be held to be not excluded from the negotiable class because he has no hand baggage?" Brooke v. Struthers, no Mich. 562, 574 (1896). Some references are: 32 L. R. A. (n. s.) 858, note; 15 Mich. L. Rev. 165; Limdean v. Hamilton, 159 N. W. 163 (Iowa, 1916); Westlake v. Cooper, 171 Pac. 859 (Okla. 1918). Bonds. — Acceleration provisions in bonds have been more UberaUy viewed than those in promissory notes and bills of exchange, because of the strong mercantile recognition of negotiability. 2 Machen on Corporations, § 1734 J'. There is reason to apprehend a narrower view, however, under the Negotiable Instruments Law, which apparently imposes its formal requisites on bonds, and so subjects them to the construction of the act which opposes acceleration by sale of collateral before maturity, etc.. Ibid., § 1740^. For a recent decision against negotiabihty under a statute similar to the act, see Crocker National Bank v. Byrne, 173 Pac. 752 (Cal. 1918) criticized in 6 Cal. L. Rev. 444.
