Knauss v. Aleck
| Decision Date | 21 June 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 37250.,37250. |
| Citation | 202 Iowa 91,209 N.W. 444 |
| Parties | KNAUSS v. ALECK. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Harrison County; J. S. Dewell, Judge.
Action to recover on a check issued by defendant to plaintiff. The jury was waived. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover, and entered judgment accordingly. Defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.William P. Welch, of Logan, for appellant.
Cochran & Wolfe, of Logan, for appellee.
This case was submitted on the following statement of facts: It is stipulated and agreed that the only question to be determined is whether or not the appellee exercised due diligence in presenting the check sued upon for payment at the State Savings Bank of Logan, Iowa, the bank upon which the check was drawn. In this connection it is agreed that the check was dated May 14, 1923, and that there was some mistake in the terms thereof; that the check was corrected in its terms on the 18th of May, 1923, after banking hours in the Town of Logan; that said appellee took the check home with him to his farm, and the same was not presented to the State Savings Bank of Logan for payment until after the said bank had closed on the 25th of May, 1923.
It is further stipulated and agreed that the appellant, at the time the bank closed, had an account with said bank which lacked sufficient funds to fully cover said check, but that appellant had made an arrangement with D. E. Cottrell, an officer of the bank, under and by virtue of which the said Cottrell, acting for and on behalf of said bank, agreed on the part of the bank to honor the said check and to pay the same when presented.
It was further stipulated that the only question to be determined by the district court was whether appellee was negligent in presenting said check for payment, and, if the court found that said appellee was negligent, then the petition was to have been dismissed, and appellant was to recover his costs; if not the court was to enter judgment for the amount of the check and interest from the date of presentment, and costs.
[1] It will be noted in this statement of facts that it is stipulated that there were not sufficient funds on hand to meet the check, but that due arrangements had been made on the part of the bank to pay the check when presented. These facts having been agreed upon, the fact that there were insufficient funds to meet the check becomes wholly immaterial, and the drawee is bound to present the same for payment. Hamlin v. Simpson, 105 Iowa, 125, 74 N. W. 906, 44 L. R. A. 397. With this question disposed of we have left the lone question of negligence in presentation.
[2] Section 9647, Code of 1924, reads as follows:
“A check must be presented for payment within a reasonable time after its issue, or the drawer will be discharged from liability thereon to the extent of the loss caused by the delay.”
The question before us, therefore, is whether or not appellee presented the check within a reasonable time.
We have frequently announced the general rule that under facts similar to these the question of what is “a reasonable time” is a question of fact. However, there are exceptions to this rule, and one is that, where the facts are undisputed, it then becames a question of law. 3 R. C. L. 1194, § 415, and cases there cited: Turner v. Iron Chief Min. Co., 74 Wis. 355, 43 N. W. 149, 5 L. R. A. 533, and note, 17 Am. St. Rep. 168; 8 C. J. 1070, note 67 and cases. Brannan's Negotiable Instruments Law (1926 Ed.) 927, states the rule to be:
“Where the facts are in dispute ‘reasonable time’ is a question for the jury, otherwise for the court”--citing Sheffield v. Cleland, 19 Idaho, 612, 115 P. 20;First Nat. Bank v. Korn (Mo. App.) 179 S. W. 721;Commercial Bank v. Zimmerman, 185 N. Y. 210, 77 N. E. 1020.
In determining what is “a reasonable time,” all the facts and circumstances of the case must be taken into consideration. Section 9654, Code of 1924. In Northern Lumber Co. v. Clausen, 208 N. W. 74, we said:
“It is a well-settled proposition of law that, where a person receives a check in the town where the drawee bank is located, it must be presented before the...
To continue reading
Request your trial