Sie sind auf Seite 1von 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)