Loth v. Mothner

Decided April 5, 1890

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1890-04-05

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.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1890-04-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently May 1937

17 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1The 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.

¶2Judgment affirmed.