Foster v. Paulk
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On Exceptions from Nisi Brius, Cutting, J., presiding. This was an action of Assumpsit on a check, payable to J. B. P., or bearer. At the trial, the plaintiff read the check declared upon, and proved that, at the maturity of the check, Paulk had no funds in the bank, and never had any there.
Read the full summary
On Exceptions from Nisi Brius, Cutting, J., presiding. This was an action of Assumpsit on a check, payable to J. B. P., or bearer. At the trial, the plaintiff read the check declared upon, and proved that, at the maturity of the check, Paulk had no funds in the bank, and never had any there. The cashier testified, that no demand or presentation had ever been made of the check, except that it was, before its maturity, left by plaintiff in the bank, and was in the bank at the time of its maturity. Defendant then offered another check made by plaintiff to defendant at the same time, which was…
1Opinion of the CourtTenney, C. J.
The check, the cause of action in the present suit, is dated Oct. 16, 1854, and payable to J. B. E., *428or bearer, at tbe Exchange Bank, on Oct. 23, 1854, and signed by the defendant, as drawer.
Several objections are inade by the defendant to the plaintiff’s right to maintain the action.
Bank checks are, in form and effect, bills of exchange. They are not direct promises by the drawers to pay, but they are undertakings, on their part, that the drawees shall accept and pay, and the drawers are answerable only in the event of the failure of the drawees to pay. As between the holder and the drawer,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Franklin v. VanderpoolThe Superior Court of New York City · 1828
3Cited by2 opinions
- Purcell v. Armour Packing Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1908
- Hibler v. OliverSupreme Court of Alabama · 1915