Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Binghampton Pharmacy, Et Al. V. First National Bank: 131 Tenn. 711, 176 S.W. 1038, 2 A.L.R. 1377 (1915)

    Uploaded by

    Zarah Rovero
    33 views8 pages
    This document summarizes a 1915 court case between Binghampton Pharmacy and First National Bank. Binghampton Pharmacy issued a promissory note payable to Chickasaw Bank & Trust Co. on December 29, 1912. First National Bank later acquired the note. The note was not presented for payment on the maturity date. Chickasaw Bank failed on January 1, 1913. When First National Bank demanded payment from Binghampton Pharmacy, it refused, arguing the note was not presented on the maturity date. The court ruled that presentment for payment is not necessary to hold the maker of a note liable at a bank, unlike an ordinary check. The maker of a note is primarily liable

    Original Description:

    nego

    Original Title

    Nego Presentation

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a 1915 court case between Binghampton Pharmacy and First National Bank. Binghampton Pharmacy issued a promissory note payable to Chickasaw Bank & Trust Co. on December 29, 1912. First National Bank later acquired the note. The note was not presented for payment on the maturity date. Chickasaw Bank failed on January 1, 1913. When First National Bank demanded payment from Binghampton Pharmacy, it refused, arguing the note was not presented on the maturity date. The court ruled that presentment for payment is not necessary to hold the maker of a note liable at a bank, unlike an ordinary check. The maker of a note is primarily liable

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    33 views8 pages

    Binghampton Pharmacy, Et Al. V. First National Bank: 131 Tenn. 711, 176 S.W. 1038, 2 A.L.R. 1377 (1915)

    Uploaded by

    Zarah Rovero
    This document summarizes a 1915 court case between Binghampton Pharmacy and First National Bank. Binghampton Pharmacy issued a promissory note payable to Chickasaw Bank & Trust Co. on December 29, 1912. First National Bank later acquired the note. The note was not presented for payment on the maturity date. Chickasaw Bank failed on January 1, 1913. When First National Bank demanded payment from Binghampton Pharmacy, it refused, arguing the note was not presented on the maturity date. The court ruled that presentment for payment is not necessary to hold the maker of a note liable at a bank, unlike an ordinary check. The maker of a note is primarily liable

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 8

    BINGHAMPTON PHARMACY, et al.

    v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK


    131 Tenn. 711, 176 S.W. 1038, 2 A.L.R. 1377 (1915)
    ROVERO, ZARAH MAE L.
    2A | 2014-2015
    FACTS
    BINGHAMPTON
    CHIKASAW
    INDORSED IN
    BLANK AND
    DISCOUNTED
    MATURITY DATE: DECEMBER 29, 1912
    PLACE: CHICKASAW BANK & TRUST CO.
    FNB
    REDISCOUNTED
    FACTS
    FNB
    DECEMEBER 29, 1912:
    FAILED TO PRESENT FOR PAYMENT AT CHICKASAW
    BANK AND TRUST CO. AT MATURITY DATE
    CHIKASAW
    JANUARY 1, 1913
    CHICKASAW BANK AND TRUST CO. FAILED
    BINGHAMPTON
    REFUSED TO PAY AS MAKER BECAUSE:
    1. SUFFICIENT DEPOSIT IN CHICKASAW
    2. FAILURE TO PRESENT FOR PAYMENT
    DEFENSE
    BINGHAMPTON
    SECTION 87 OF NIL.

    Instruments Payable at Bank Equivalent to What?
    Where the instrument is made payable at a bank, it is equivalent
    to an order to the bank to pay the same for the account of the
    principal debtor.
    IT IS THE DUTY OF THE HOLDER OF THE NOTE TO
    PRESENT FOR PAYMENT AT THE BANK AND IT MUST
    SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES OF ITS NEGLECT OF DUTY.
    ISSUE
    RATIO
    HOLDER OF THE
    NOTE PAYABLE AT A
    BANK
    PRESENTMENT FOR PAYMENT IS NOT NECESSARY TO
    HOLD THE MAKER LIABLE.
    HOLDER OF AN
    ORDINARY CHECK
    =
    SECTION 79 OF NIL
    Presentment for payment is not necessary in order to charge the
    person primarily liable on the instrument, but is the instrument is, by
    its terms, payable at a special place and he is able and willing to pay it
    there at maturity, such ability and willingness are equivalent to a
    tender of payment upon his part.
    RATIO
    DRAWER OF A CHECK MAKER OF A NOTE
    SECONDARILY LIABLE PRIMARILY LIABLE
    HE ENGAGES THAT IF THE
    INSTRUMENT BE
    DISHONORED HE WILL PAY
    THE AMOUNT THEREOF
    BY THE TERMS, ABSOLUTELY
    REQUIRED TO PAY
    SEC. 79 DOES NOT APPLY SEC. 79 APPLIES
    DUTY OF THE HOLDER TO
    PRSENT FOR PAYMENT AT THE
    PLACE WHERE IT IS PAYABLE
    WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME
    AFTER ITS ISSE
    PRESENTMENT FOR PAYMENT
    IS NOT NECESSARY
    EFFECT OF INSTRUMENT PAYABLE AT A BANK: IT ONLY AUTHORIZES A
    BANK, AT WHICH AN INSTRUMENT IS MADE PAYABLE, TO PAY SAME FOR
    THE ACCOUNT OF THE PRINCIPAL DEBTOR. THEY ARE ORDERS ON THE
    BANK DESIGNATED. IT MUST NOT BE SO EXPANDED AS TO DESTROY
    OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT
    BINGHAMPTON PHARMACY, et al.
    v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK
    131 Tenn. 711, 176 S.W. 1038, 2 A.L.R. 1377 (1915)

    You might also like