bank sent a printed slip to the maker to come in and pay it.

BOSWORTH, J.: "The defense to this suit is that no legal and proper demand was made on the maker of the note; and that therefore the indorser who is here sued is discharged. The rule of the common law is that in order to charge the indorser demand must be made on the maker for payment on the very day on which the note becomes due. In case the note on its face is made payable at a particular place, as at a bank named, it is necessary, and only necessary, to make demand at such place; but if no place of payment is named in the note at which the note is payable, it is necessary to present the note to the maker personally or at his place of abode or business before the indorser can be made chargeable.

Question 528: What was done in this case as presentment for payment? Was it sufficient?

Case 529. German-American Bank of Rochester v. Milliman, 65 N. Y. Suppl. 242.

Facts: Suit by an indorsee on a note against the maker. The note was payable at Central Bank, whose banking hours were from 10 A. M. until 4 P. M. On the date of maturity the note was presented at the Central Bank and refused, because of no funds there to pay it. About 15 minutes to 4 Milliman deposited enough to pay the note, and then went to plaintiff, the German American Bank, and informed the cashier of that fact. The cashier informed him that the note had already gone to protest and he would have to pay the protest fees. Defendant refused and this a suit against him on the note for the amount thereof and protest fees and costs of suit.

Point Involved: Whether the party liable on an instrument has all of the day of maturity till the close of business hours or of banking hours if payable at a bank, to pay the instrument.

SUTHERLAND, J.: [After reviewing many authorities] "My conclusion is that the maker of this note in suit was allowed, by commercial usage, until 4 o'clock, to deposit at the Central Bank the money necessary to cover the note; and such deposit having been made 15 minutes before 4 o'clock, the maker is not in default. Although demand for the payment of the note was previously made, and the note protested for non-payment, the protest became of no avail on deposit of the amount of the note and interest, and the maker cannot be compelled to pay the protest fees thus incurred. I think this should be held to be the rule whether we regard the protest of the note earlier in the day as wholly bad or conditionally good,-good on condition that the maker did not, before the close of banking hours, fulfill his engagement by making his account good at the bank where the note was payable. The judgment appealed from is therefore modified so that plaintiff shall recover of the defendant [the amount of the note with accrued interest and without protest fees or costs of suit].

Question 529: What were the facts in this case, the point in controversy and the Court's decision?

(5) To Whom Presented.

Case 530. Uniform Negotiable Instruments Act, Secs. 76-78.

Sec. 76. Where the person primarily liable on the instrument is dead, and no place of payment is specified, presentment for payment must be made to his personal representative if such there be, and. if with exercise of reasonable diligence, he can be found.

Sec. 77. Where the persons primarily liable on the instrument are liable as partners, and no place of payment is specified, presentment for payment may be made to any one of them, even though there has been a dissolution of the firm.

Sec. 78. Where there are several persons, not partners, primarily liable on the instrument, and no place of

payment is specified, presentment must be made to them all.'

Question 530: (1) If the person primarily liable on the instrument is dead, what is the rule?

(2) If the parties liable are partners, what is the rule? (3) If they are not partners?

Case 531. Uniform Negotiable Instruments Law, Sec. 74.

"Sec. 74. The instrument must be exhibited to the person from whom payment is demanded and when it is paid must be delivered up to the party paying it." Question 531: State the rule. See Case 528, supra.

§ 501. When presentment for payment to party primarily liable not required in order to holder party secondarily liable.

(1) Drawer No Right to Expect When.

Case 532. Uniform Negotiable Instruments Law, Sec. 79.

"Presentment for payment is not required in order to charge the drawee where he has no right to expect or require that the drawee or acceptor will pay the instrument."

Question 532: State this rule.

(2) Accommodation to Indorser.

Case 533. Uniform Negotiable Instruments Law, Sec. 80.

"Presentment for payment is not required to charge an indorser where the instrument was made or accepted for his accommodation and he has no reason to expect the instrument will be paid if presented."

Question 533: A for B's accommodation and in order to enable B to obtain money from C, makes a note to B for $500.

B indorses this note to C. At maturity C makes no presentment to A. C afterwards sues B as indorser. Does the lack of presentment excuse B? Why?

(3) Not Possible With Due Diligence.

Case 534. Uniform Negotiable Instruments Act, Sec. 81.

"Delay in making presentment for payment is excused when the delay is caused by circumstances beyond the control of the holder, and not imputable to his default, misconduct or negligence. When the cause of delay ceases to operate, presentment must be made with reasonable diligence."

Question 534: When is delay in making presentment excused?

(4) Presentment for Payment Dispensed with When. Case 535. Uniform Negotiable Instruments Act, Sec. 82.

"Presentment for payment is dispensed with:

"1. When after the exercise of reasonable diligence presentment as required by this act can not be made. "2. Where the drawee is a fictitious person.

"3. By waiver of presentment, express or implied.' Question 535: When is presentment for payment dispensed with?

Case 536. Bessenger v. Wenzel, 125 N. W. 750 (Mich.)

Facts: The note in question was made by a corporation of which the indorsers were directors and managers, and they knew that the corporation had no money to pay the note and had assured the payee it could not be paid at maturity. Moore, J., held that the necessity for presentment for payment was dispensed with by implied waiver.

Question 536: What were the facts in this case and what did the Court hold?

B. Presentment of Bill for Acceptance.

§ 502. Presentment for acceptance necessary in certain cases.

§ 503. What presentment for acceptance sufficient.

§ 504. When excused.

§ 505. Right of holder where bill not accepted.

§ 502. (Nego. Instru., Sec. 110.) Presentment for acceptance necessary in certain cases.

Case 537. Uniform Negotiable Instruments Law, Sec. 143.

"Presentment for acceptance must be made:

"1. Where the bill is payable after sight, or any other case where presentment for acceptance is necessary in order to fix the maturity of the instrument; or,

"2. Where the bill is drawn payable elsewhere than at the residence or place of business of the drawee.

"In no other case is presentment for acceptance necessary in order to render any party to the bill liable.”

Question 537: In what cases must presentment for acceptance be made?

(Note: Presentment for acceptance may be made in anyother case.)

§ 503. (Nego. Instru., Sec. 111.) What presentment for acceptance sufficient.

Case 538. Uniform Negotiable Instruments Act, Sec. 144, 145, 146.

"Sec. 144. Except as herein otherwise provided, the holder of a bill which is required by the next preceding section to be presented for acceptance must either present it for acceptance or negotiate it within a reasonable time. If he fails to do so the drawer and all indorsers are discharged."

"Sec. 145. Presentment for acceptance must be made by or on behalf of the holder at a reasonable hour, on a business day, and before the bill is overdue, to the drawee or some person authorized to accept or refuse acceptance on his behalf; and,

"1. Where a bill is addressed to two or more drawees who are not partners, presentment must be made to them