Davis Nat. Bank Of Piedmont v. Kight

• Decision Date: 27 April 1920
• Docket Number: (No. 3966.)
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: DAVIS NAT. BANK OF PIEDMONT. v. KIGHT et al.

103 S.E. 482

DAVIS NAT. BANK OF PIEDMONT.

v.KIGHT et al.

(No. 3966.)

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

April 27, 1920.

Rehearing Denied July 9, 1920.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error to Circuit Court, Mineral County.

Action by the Davis National Bank of Piedmont against C. E. Kight, and Charles N. Finnell, administrator, d. b. n. c. t. a. of D. J. Long, deceased. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant administrator brings error. Affirmed.

Arthur Arnold, of Piedmont, and Clias. N. Finnell and W. C. Grimes, both of Keyser, for plaintiff in error.

Robert McVeigh Drane, of Piedmont, and Harry G. Fisher, of Keyser, for defendant in error.

WILLIAMS, P. To a judgment recovered by plaintiff against Charles N. Finnell, administrator d. b. n. c. t. a. of D. J. Long, deceased, upon a negotiable note made by E. C. Kight and indorsed for his accommodation by said D. J. Long, said administrator was awarded this writ of error.

The principal question presented is, Was presentment and notice of dishonor made within a reasonable time? The note was made September 25, 1916, payable on demand, to the order of D. J. Long at the plaintiff bank at Piedmont, W. Va., and was discounted by it for the maker. It was never renewed, but interest on it was paid at several different times, the last being for interest to April 1, 1918. D. J. Long died, testate, April 4, 1917, leaving Mabel H. Long, his widow, as his executrix, who qualified as such on May 15, 1917. The note was protested on May 22, 1918, and notice thereof addressed to Mrs. Long, executrix, at Piedmont, W. Va., her address, and deposited in the post office at that place, properly stamped. Mrs. Long thereafter, on the 26th of June, 1918, married, and thereby became disqualified as executrix, and the appellant, Charles N. Finnell, qualified as administrator d. b. n. c. t. a. of D. J. Long, deceased. This suit was begun by notice of motion for judgment, to be made on the 21st day of January, 1919, the first day of the January term of the circuit court. The case was heard by the court in lieu of a jury, by agreement of counsel, and the judgment complained of rendered against appellant, as the administrator of D. J. Long, deceased, on the 2d day of June, 1919.

Was presentment for payment made within a reasonable time? Section 71 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (Code 1913, § 4242) says, when an instrument is payable on demand, "presentment must be made within a reasonable time after its issue." What is a reasonable time depends upon the circumstances of each particular case. Bacon's Adm'r v. Bacon's Trustees, 94 Va. 686, 27 S. E. 576; 8 C. J. § 751; 1 Daniel on Neg. Insts. (6th Ed.) § 604. The reasonableness of the time is a question of fact for the jury in this case the court, as the case was submitted to him in lieu of a jury. The law lays down no hard and fast rule applicable to all such cases. It is proven to be the custom and practice of the plaintiff bank to carry demand notes when the interest is kept promptly paid thereon, for long periods of time, without requiring renewals thereof. D. J. Long, the indorser, was a stockholder in, and one of the directors of, the plaintiff bank, and presumably knew of...