Loth v. Mothner
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Miller Circuit Court. C. E. MITCHEL, Judge. There was no agreement that the draft should be taken a absolute payment; it was only a conditional payment, an the worthless exchange sent by the bank was not a paymen Tiedeman on Com. Paper, sec. 379; 32 Ark., 740; 45 Ark., 313. See also Randolph, Com. Pap., sec. 1548. By , sending a draft through'the mail to the bank on which it is drawn, the sender does not constitute the bank his agent to receive the proceeds.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Miller Circuit Court. C. E. MITCHEL, Judge. There was no agreement that the draft should be taken a absolute payment; it was only a conditional payment, an the worthless exchange sent by the bank was not a paymen Tiedeman on Com. Paper, sec. 379; 32 Ark., 740; 45 Ark., 313. See also Randolph, Com. Pap., sec. 1548. By , sending a draft through'the mail to the bank on which it is drawn, the sender does not constitute the bank his agent to receive the proceeds. Tiedeman on Com. Paper, sec. 444; 80 N. Y., 106; 78 N. Y., 269.
1Per curiam
The appellees gave appellants a written •order on their banker at Texarkana to pay an account. The •order was presented for payment at a time when the bank had money of the drawer for its payment; the payees waived their right to demand cash, and for their own convenience asked payment in St. Louis exchange which was given them. Having elected the mode of payment, they cannot now repudiate it because the exchange proved worthless, but the appellees’ debt is satisfied. Byles on Bills, 389; 7 Barn. & Cres., 19; 3 Ran., Com. Paper, sec. 1551.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by11 opinions
- Smith v. MillsOregon Supreme Court · 1924
- Burns v. YocumSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
- Johnson v. First State BankSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1920
- Rainwater v. Fed. Reserve Bk. of St. LouisSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1927
- Berg v. Federal Reserve BankNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1927
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.