Skip to main content
· 2/28/1895

First National Bank v. Buckhannon Bank

Citations

  • 80 Md. 475
  • 31 A. 302
  • 1895 Md. LEXIS 7

Syllabus

<p>Diligence in Presenting Checks for Payment — Discharge of Drawer —Collecting Agent — Substituted Check.</p> <p>When the banker on whom a check is drawn subsequently becomes insolvent, the want of due diligence by the payee of- the check, or his collecting agent, in presenting the same for payment, does not discharge thé drawer when it is shown that the latter was not injured by the delay, and that if due diligence had been used- the check would not have been paid.</p> <p>If a check be drawn on a bank situated in another place, it should, at the latest, be mailed for presentment on the day after it is received, , and should be presented at the place of payment on the day after it arrives there.</p> <p>The defendant bank gave to the plaintiff bank, in West Virginia, a check on N. & Sons, bankers in Baltimore, with whom defendant had a deposit. Plaintiff received the check on January 12, and on the same day mailed it for collection to a bank in Philadelphia, which received it on January 13, and forwarded it for collection to a Baltimore bank, by which it was received on January 14. At one o’clock on that day the check was presented to N. & Sons for payment. They drew a check on the Western Bank in settlement and received the check drawn on them. Thirty minutes afterwards N. & .Sons suspended business and closed their doors. Their check was afterwards presented for payment to the Western Bank, on the same afternoon, during banking hours, and payment was, refused. Had the plaintiff’s check been presented to N. & Sons on January 13, or before noon on January 14, it would have been paid, but at the time they gave their check on the Western Bank they had no funds there and the check was of no value, and they themselves could not then pay plaintiff’s check on them. Held,</p> <p>1st. That since the plaintiff was under no obligation to forward the check on N. & Sons until the day after its receipt, viz., January 13, the fact that it was sent through Philadelphia did not cau

Judges: Boyd, Bryan, Fowler, McSherry, Roberts, Robinson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.