36 Neb. 744 | Neb. | 1893
This was an action in the district court of Hall county to recover for the failure of the defendant below, plaintiff in error, to give notice of the dishonor of certain checks received by it for collection from the plaintiff below, by reason of which certain indorsers thereon were discharged, to the damage of the latter. The facts as they appear from the pleadings and proofs are substantially as follows :
About the 11th day of January, 1887, at Ravenna, in Buffalo county, one Hillebrandt drew eleven checks to the order of as many different payees upon the defendant, the Wood River Bank, doing business at Wood River, Hall county, amounting in the aggregate to $737.28. The checks aforesaid were all cashed by the Farmers Bank of Ravenna, upon the indorsement of the several payees, and upon the day above named were transmitted by it with
The evidence is conflicting with respect to the time of the receipt of the checks by the defendant. If we regarded that question as decisive of the case, we would feel constrained to resolve it in favor of the defendant, notwithstanding the finding of the jury that they were received by it on the evening of the 13th. Both Hockenberger, the cashier, and Hollister, the president, testify positively that the checks were received by the bank on the afternoon of the 14th. But the judgment is right nevertheless. It is evident from their testimony that the checks were received at the bank before the close of its business on the 14th that they were opened and examined by the witnesses, who were both aware that there were no funds to the credit of the drawer, and who delayed giving of notice or taking of any steps for the protection of the plaintiff below, in order to enable Hillebrandt to provide funds to balance his account the next day. It is admitted also that the defendant bank continued to pay Hillebrandt’s checks in favor of home customers, although no entries appear to his credit on its books subsequent to the 13th. The jury were warranted upon the admitted facts in finding that the bank intended to accept the bills and that by its delay it became liable thereon. (Northumberland Bank v. McMichael, 106 Pa. St., 460.)
Checks like those in question are to be regarded as inland bills of exchange, therefore protest is not essential in order to preserve the rights of antecedent parties (Hughes v. Kellogg, 3 Neb., 194; Daniel, Neg. Insts., 926; Chitty, Bills [8th ed.], 500, 501), although the holder is required to exercise the same degree of diligence in giving
It is said by Chancellor Kent, 3 Kent’s Com., 105: “According to modern doctrine, the notice must be given by the first direct and regular conveyance. This means the first mail that goes after the day next to the third day of grace; so that if the third day of grace be on Thursday, and the drawer and indorser reside out of town, the notice may indeed be sent on Thursday, but must be put into the post-office or mailed on Friday so as to be forwarded as soon as possible thereafter.”
The next inquiry is whether by delivering the checks to the notary public on the 15th for protest the defendant discharged its duty to the plaintiff, for it is clear, upon authority, that that was the latest day on which notice could have been given in order to charge the indorsers. The rule sanctioned by the weight of authority is conceded to be that a bank which places paper in the hands of notary
2. The plaintiff below assumed the burden of proving the solvency of the first indorsers, the payees of the several checks. For that purpose Mr. Davis, the cashier of the Farmers Bank of Ravenna, was called as a witness and testified that he was acquainted with the financial standing of the parties named and that he considered them good for the amounts named in the checks bearing their respective indorsements. From his cross-examination it appeared that One or more of them were somewhat embarrassed financially. It is now urged that there is not sufficient evidence of the solvency of the indorsers, hence it cannot be said
The judgment of the district court is right and is
Affirmed.