Legal Opinion · Dissent

Brookside Mills v. Ry. Exp. Agency

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided June 13, 1936Published

1DissentChambliss, J.

With great deference, I am constrained to non-concur in the opinion of the majority. It is true that in Tennessee and generally, the rule is held to be that where both drawer and drawee of a check reside in the same town where the drawee bank is located, the check must be presented before closing hours of the second day. But this time limitation rule is not absolute. It is consistent with, and to be construed in connection with, the basic rule of due or reasonable diligence, and with the general exception that “delay is excusable when it is caused by circumstances beyond the control of the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Jackson v. BankTennessee Supreme Court · 1893
  2. Lowell Co-operative Bank v. SheridanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933
  3. Commercial Investment Trust v. Lundgren-Wittensten Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
  4. Russell v. BuxtonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1930

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API