Omaha daily bee., 1905-07-24
LAW OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS
Changes Made In statute By the Late
Leafslnture.

Nn-hENH MAue IN " AhN AfAAN
Legislature.
LINCOLN. July 23.-(Special. )--Just what
changes have, been made by the new Me-
braska law OF negotiable instruments is
succintiy explained by the following. fur
nished by the First National Bank OF Lin
coin by its lawyers and, being distributed
by the bank in a printed folder;
After a thorough examination OF the ne
Eouable instrument law passed by the last
legislature we have come to the conclusion
that Il changes the existing law in this
state in ive particulars.
l. Section g Of the new law is US fol-
lows; "CLtability Nof irregular indorser.)
Where a person not otherwise party TO
an instrument places thereon his Signature
In blank before delivery, he is liable as m
oorser In accordance with the following
rules
II the instrument is payable to the order
or the third person, he Is liable TO the payee
and to all subsequent parties. II the in
strument is payable to the order OF
besrer afer ba or SpHwe r. % psyas SSbss TO
quent to the maker or drawer IL he signs
Tor the accommodation OF the payee, he is
liable TO all parties subsequent to the
The question here involved (when the
instrument was payable to the order of
court il the case Of Salisbury against Ma
tional Bank of Cambridge, 81 Neb., $40. The
syllabus is as follows:
"A person, other than payee, who signs
MS name In blank upon the back of
promissory note at the time OF its eXecu-
ton, and before It's delivery to the payee,
is as TO a subsequent bonafde holder for
value, liable thereon as a joint maker"
The principle announced in this case was
re affirmed in Drexel against Pusey, 81 Neb.
30 with the modification that as between
the original parties and those not innocent
purchasers the true character of the obli-
cation assumed might be shown by parol.
Under the negotiable instrument act in all
cases one signing his name in blank upon
the back Of promissOry note before de-
livery is liable as endorser and to be held
the necessary steps to make an endorser
he noe usf aaFnst 4e taken az i9e dgS s
w. p. 221 was a case where the note was
payable to the order of the maker; and,
the supreme court held, as the law is laid
down in the negotiable instrument act, that
the defendants who wrote their names on
the back OF the note were endorsers.
z. section 8 of the law under consldera-
ton abolishes grace.
=. 3 Section IS Of the new law provides in
gotabe st as as fooSs SsnonCr THE Se me- ne
uce may be IN writing or merely oral, and
may be given in any terms which suf-
dicate that 1t has been dishonored by nom
aeSeptance or nonpayment. II may in all
ca cases .n be given by delivering 1t personally
This section ohanges the law as an
nounced In Forbes against Omaha National
Phelps against stockha ts a NeSs eiSsnFed ais and ID
Hendershot against Nebraska National
pan bank 70 s, Nsb;, i27 in that it permits a mo-
mails even where the parties resided at the
same place, Under the above mentioned
eSis 1eSiislons IT was necessary TO give personal
place: The negotiable instrument act now
permits notice of dishonor to be given
through the malls in all cases
4 Section 131 of the new law is as follows:
Inc acceptance of a bill Is the signihca-
ton by the drawee of his assent to the
be In writing and signed by the drawee
IL must not express that the drawee Will
perform his promise by any other means
than MS payment of money"
In Farmers and Merchants bank against
Dunbier, 80 Neb., 4S7. It was held that a
verbal acceptance. OF check by the drawee
was In writing. The same rule under this
decision would have extended to bills of
exchange.
BY the new law acceptance now can only
s. Section 1SS OF the new law is as fol-
lowe: "A check Of itself does not operate
as an assignment of any part OF the funds
to the credit OF theAdrawer with bank, and
the bank is not le4ble to the holder un-
less and until II accepts or hertifes the
1t will be noticed that the last clause pro-
woes that a bank Is not liable to the
! fes the check. This changes the law as
announced in Fonner against Smith, 81
Neb;. lC7, and as recognized in Columbia
bank, s. Neb., sos 1t was held in these
cases that check drawn on funds IN a
bank 6s Is appropriation Of the amount of the
| or the check In favor OF the holder thereof
| 7,in effect an assignment OF the amount OF
| the check; and the holder, upon refusal OF
finds o1S ba,,a 70 ot pay ~ the same, where such
presentatlon, may bring an action thereon
| In his own name.
J Under the new law II baAk refuses to
| pay check upon presentation, although
! II has funds of the drawer suficient to
| do SO the holder thereof cannot maintain
| suit against the bank unless II has ac-
| cepted or certified the check