Case ID: ohio-law-abs_1/html/0221-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "VICKERY, J.:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 178
    FIRST STATE BANK OF OK. v. FOOTE LUMBER CO.
    Ohio Court of Appeals, Cuyahoga County
    No. 4156,
    Jan. 15, 1923
    BANKS AND BANKING — Payment of Checks — (1) Time of presenting check to determine whether holder in due course.
    This opinion has appeared only in The Abstract.
    Error to Municipal Court of Cleveland
    Attorneys — Dustin, McKeehan, Merrick, Arter & Stewart, for the Oklahoma Bank; J. H. Hogg, for the Foote Co.
   VICKERY, J.:

Epitomized Opinion

The Foote Lumber Co. became indebted to one Murray of Oklahoma City and on Oct. 25, 1920, drew a cheek on a Cleveland bank and forwarded the' check to Murray. Several days later Murray came to Cleveland and not having received the first check before leaving Oklahoma, requested payment by Foote Co. who thereupon drew 'a check to Murray for the same amount and stopped payment on the check sent to Oklahoma City. Murray cashed the second check, returned to Oklahoma and deposited the first check to his account in the Oklahoma bank. Immediately thereafter Murray withdrew practically all his funds from the bank and left for parts unknown. The Cleveland bank refused to pay the first check on its presentation, Nov. 10, 1920, and the Oklahoma bank, claiming to be a holder in due course, sues the Foote Co. to collect the amount of the check. Judgment for the Foote Co. in municipal court. Held by court of appeals in affirming the judgment:

1. In order to claim the position of an innocent holder in due course, a party must have presented the check within a reasonable time, which is the next day if the bank is in the same city and otherwise one day more than the time required to send a check between the cities by mail.