Sie sind auf Seite 1von 14

Urwiller v.

Platte
Valley State Bank
Presented by Anna Veluz – 2A
FACTS OF THE CASE
FACTS OF THE CASE
Urwiller maintains a business in Nebraska where he engages in the buying and selling of livestock, particularly
the direct buying of hogs.

Ira McCord, one of Urwiller’s regular customers, purchased from the latter 50 head of hogs and a small amount
of bedding and feed, and shipped them to San Francisco, California.

As payment, McCord issued a check in favor of Urwiller in the sum of ﹩2, 491.11.

The following day, Urwiller’s wife deposited the check alongside with other checks in his account with the
Ravenna Bank, in the regular course of business. Since no special instruction was given, the bank forwarded the
check for collection through regular channels.
The Process

2 4
Ravenna Bank Federal
Reserve
Bank (Omaha)

Platte Valley
Deposit of the Lincoln Bank State Bank
Check (for payment)

1 3 5
FACTS OF THE CASE
The check was received by Platte Valley State Bank (PVSB) in a cash letter from the Omaha branch during
business hours on a Saturday on Dec. 12, 1953. It was proofed on the day it was received and posted for action
on the following day.
However, it was decided not to pay the check but instead was marked for “return” since the drawer did not have
sufficient funds in his account with PVSB.
The actual return thereof to the Federal Bank was only made on December 16, and such delay was due to the
fact that the bank examiners came and assumed control of all the records of the bank and did not return such
until they have been checked.
Appellant was advised by the Ravenna bank on December 17, of the fact that payment of the check had been
refused although the check was not actually returned to him until Saturday, December 19, 1953.
The check has never been paid. Neither has a judgment for the amount thereof been paid which appellant has
obtained against McCord.
Urwiller’s main contention
is that the bank is liable for
retaining the check for
more than 24 hours after it
was presented before it.
ISSUE
WHETHER THERE WAS
CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE.
(NONE).
RULING
RULING OF THE COURT
Sec. 136. Time allowed drawee to accept. - The drawee is allowed twenty-four
hours after presentment in which to decide whether or not he will accept the bill;
the acceptance, if given, dates as of the day of presentation.
Sec. 137. Liability of drawee returning or destroying bill. - Where a drawee to
whom a bill is delivered for acceptance destroys the same, or refuses within
twenty-four hours after such delivery or within such other period as the holder may
allow, to return the bill accepted or non-accepted to the holder, he will be deemed
to have accepted the same.
RULING OF THE COURT
It must be noted that these sections relied upon by Urwiller are only applicable when a bill is presented for
acceptance and not when it is presented for payment.

In this case, the check was being presented for payment and at no time was the check ever presented to the
bank for acceptance.

Presentment of Payment and presentment for acceptance are two different acts which are well known to the
Negotiable Instruments Law. Since Urwiller’s check was presented to the bank for payment and not for
acceptance, the 24 hour rule he invokes is not applicable to the factual circumstances of his case.
Presentment in the NIL

For Payment For Acceptance

Such act extinguishes the debt and Such presentment creates a liability
ends the negotiability of the upon the acceptor and also gives
instrument. life to the instrument.
Thank You!