Burked, 48 Mich. 241, and Marbourg v. Brinkman, 23 Mo. App. 511, deny the rule as to prompt demand as to bank checks. The rule ought to be, as to bank checks or certified checks, that, if they are actually put into circulation, they are to be governed by the rule as to bills of exchange. See Sec. 251,ante. See, as to certified checks, Farmers' Bank v. Butchers' Bank, 4 Duer, 219, 16 N. Y. 125; Thomson v. Brit. North Am. Bank, 45 N. Y. Super. Ct. 1.

7 See last note.

8 Bull v. First Nat. Bank, 14 Fed. R. 612, reversed in 123 U. S. 105 (both decisions stating the same principle. But the lower court had held that a check not presented within a reasonable time was dishonored and overdue, and therefore an indorsee took subject to equities between the drawer and the first indorser or payea The upper court reverses this ruling, and holds that a check is not overdue, as to an indorsee for value, until it has been presented for payment and payment has been refused); Mohawk Bank v. Broderick, 10 Wend. 304,13 Wend. 133; Woodruff v. Plant, 41 Conn. 344; Pollard v. Bo wen, 57 Ind. 232; Marbourg v. Brinkman, 23 Mo. App. 511; Hem-melman v. Hotaling, 40 Cal. 111.

9 Simpson v. Pacific Mut. Ins. Co., 44 Cal. 139; Cawein v. Browinski, 6 Bush, 457; Wear v. Lee, 87 Mo. 358; Smith v. Miller, 43 N. Y. 171; Doherty v. Watson, 29 Wkly. Notes Caa 32; Schoolfield v. Moon, 9 Heisk. 171. In First Nat. Bank v. Alexander, 84 N. C. 30, it is suggested that, if the holder of the check knows the bank td be in a failing condition, he should show greater promptitude. The rule excludes Sundays, of course. O'Brien v. Smith, 1 Black, 99.

10 Smith v. Janes, 20 Wend. 192; N. W. Coal Co. v. Bowman, 69 Iowa, 150. This rule is extended, by statute covering bills of exchange (Warner v. Citizens' Bank, 6 S. D. 152), as to a bank check.

11 Werk v. Mad River Valley Bank, 8 Ohio St. 301; First Nat. Bank v. Buckhannon Bank, 80 Md. 475; Allen v. Kramer, 2 Bradw. 205; Backwill v. Bridgeport Wood Co.,. 62 III App. 663

12 Braun v. Kimberlin, 9 Am. Law Rec. 405; Loux v. Fox, 171 Pa. 68; Cox v. Boone, 8 W. Va. 500; Taylor v. Wilson, 11 Met. 44 (the check seems to have been negotiated). See next note.

13 Rosenthal v. Erlicher, 154 Pa. 396. Contra, Gifford v. Hardell, 88 Wis. 538; Hazleton v. Colburn, 1 Root 345.

14 See Sec. 244, ante, note 6. Moody v. Mack, 43 Mo. 210, was wrongly decided, even as to an indorser.

15 See Sec. 262 et seq., post.

16Nat. State Bank v. Weil, 4 Pa. Co. Ct R 346. 141 Pa. 457 (delay of three days). Compare Woodruff v. Plant, 41 Conn. 344; Industrial Co. v. Weakley, 103 Ala. 458 (six days' delay); N. W. Coal Co. v. Bowman, 69 Iowa, 150 (seven days' delay); Veazie Bank v. Winn, 40 Ma 60

(three days); Little v.Phoenix Bank, 2 Hill, 425, 7 Hill, 359 (ten months, New York on New Orleans); Car roll v. Sweet, 30 N. Y. Supp. 204 (nine days); Dalon v. Davidson, 39 N. Y. Supp. 394; Merchants' Bank v. Parker, 12 N. Y. St R 558 (six days). See State v. Gates, 67 Mo. 139; Miller v. Moseley, 26 La. Ann. 667.

17 Simonds v. Black River Ins. Co., Fed. Cas. No. 12,874 (even if drawee); Kilpatrick v. Home Building Ass'n, 119 Pa. 30 (solicitor of payee); Wagner v. Crook, 167 Pa. 259 (drawer). See Nebraska Nat. Bank v. Logan, 29 Neb. 278.

18 Fernald v. Bush, 131 Mass. 591. And see the case of Anderson v. Gill, 79 Md. 312, in the next note. Contra, First Nat Bank v. Fourth Nat Bank, 77 N. Y. 320.

19 Morris v. Eufala Bank, 106 Ala. 383; Smith v. Miller, 43 N. Y. 171. See Anderson v. Gill. 79 Md. 312. This case is as follows: A check was deposited for collection with bank A., which presented it to the drawee bank next day, and took the drawee bank's check on bank C, which was a few blocks distant; the check, being received from the drawee bank about eleven o'clock, was presented to bank C. before three o'clock of the same day, but the drawee bank became insolvent at one o'clock, and hence the check taken in payment was not paid, whereupon bank A. obtained the original check, of which it was owner, and protested it, and the holder of the check sued the drawer of the original check. It was held the holder could not recover from the drawer, because her agent had delayed two hours. The case is undoubtedly wrong,since the payee was suing the drawer, not the payee suing her agent. The court discovered that fact in First Nat. Bank v. Buckhannon, 80 Md. 475, and entered upon one of those efforts to distinguish, which are so pathetic. Smith v. Miller, 43 N. Y. 171, supports the rule as it is stated in the text. See First Nat. Bank v. Fourth Nat. Bank, 77 N. Y. 320; Kobbi v. Underbill, 3 Sandf. Ch. 277; Johnson v. Bank of North America, 5 Robt. 554.

20 See last note.

21 See last note. 22SeeSec. 181, ante, note 1.

23 See last note and note 17, supra, and Anderson v. Rogers, 53 Kan. 542. But Nebraska Bank v. Logan. 29 Neb. 278, must be contra, although it was a question of holding the drawer.

24 See note 17, supra. 25Holmer v. Roe, 62 Mich. 199;

Edwards v. Moses, 2 Nott & McC. 433; Case v. Morris, 31 Pa. 100. 26 Kenyon v. Stanton, 44 Wis. 479;

Lowenstein v. Bresler, 109 Ala. 326; Lawrence v. Schmidt, 35 I11. 440; Fletcher v. Pierson, 69 Ind. 281. But this rule seems to be denied in the two last cases cited in the preceding note. See Culver v. Marks, 122 Ind. 554.

27 Lowenstein v. Bresler, 109 Ala. 826. See last note.

28 Lowenstein v. Bresler, 109 Ala. 326.

29 See cases in note 26; Industrial Co. v. Weakley, 103 Ala. 458.

30 Kenyon v. Stanton, 44 Wis 479; but see Industrial Co. v. Weakley, 103 Ala. 458. The drawer had not sufficient funds, but he had a credit with the bank to the amount of the check.

31 Stewart v. Smith, 17 Ohio St. 82. This decision is put upon a wrong ground. The real ground is that the check is not dishonored so as to become subject to equities between drawer and payee until it has been presented and dishonored. See Bull v. First Nat. Bank, 123 U. S. 205,

32 St. John v. Homans, 8 Mo. 382; but see Morrison v. McCartney, 30 Mo. 183. These cases show the absurdity of the old paper currency. The case of Willets v. Paine, 43 111. 432, attempts to decide this point, but since the drawer had a general credit, not a credit of particular money, the decision is absurd.