Rottman

On March 15, 1919, defendant signed and delivered to plaintiff an instrument as follows:

This action was brought on December 10, 1919, to recover the principal and accrued interest and the attorney’s fees provided for by the foregoing writing. The trial court gave a judgment that plaintiff take nothing and that defendant recover his costs. From that judgment plaintiff appeals.

[1] The paper in controversy is not made payable either to order or to bearer. “The instrument to be negotiable must be made payable to order or to bearer.” (Civ. Code, see. 3082, subd. 4, as amended by Stats. 1917, p. 1532.) Under the construction that has uniformly been placed upon this section of the Negotiable Instruments Law, the paper in question is non-negotiable. (Johnson v. Lassiter, 155 N. C.. 47 [ 71 S. E. 23 ]; Gilley v. Harrell, 118 Tenn. 115 [ 101 S. W. 424 ].)

In many respects the facts of this case are similar to those presented in Rottman v. Hevener, ante, p. 474 [ 202 Pac. 329 ]. The defenses interposed by defendant’s answer and found by the court in his favor are: (1) Contemporaneously with its execution, plaintiff orally represented to defendant that before the note should become due…