A check is a bill of exchange drawn on a bank, payable on demand. Neg. Instr. Act § 185.
The chief differences between checks and bilis of exchange are First, a check is not due until pre sented, and, consequently, it can be negotiated any time before presentment, and yet not subject the holder to any equities existing between the previous parti;s; Cruger v. Armstrong, 3 Johns. Cas. (N. Y.) 5, 9, 2 Am. Dec. 126; 9 B. & C. 388; Chit. Bills (8th ed.) 546. Secondly, the drawer of a check is not discharged for want of immediate presentment with due diligence ; while the drawer of a hill of ex change is. The drawer of a check Is only discharged by such neglect when he sustains actual damage by it, and then only pro tanto; Murray v. Judah, 6 'Cow. (N. Y.) 484 ; Mohawk Bank v. Broderick, 10 Wend. (N. Y.) 306; Little v. Bank, 2 Hill (N. Y.) 425. See Case v. Morris, 31 Pa. 100. Thirdly, the death of the drawer of a check rescinds the authority of the banker to pay it; while the death of the drawer of a hill of exchange does not alter the relations of the parties; 3 M. & G. 571-573.. Fourthly, checks, unlike hills of exchange, are always payable with out grace ; Woodruff v. Bank, 25 Wend. (N. Y.) 673 , Merchants' Bank of New York v. Woodruff, 6 Hill (N. Y.) 174. See a discussion of this subject, 4 Kent (Lacey's ed.) note on p. 571 of the index, comment ing upon opinion of Cowen, J., in Harker v. An derson, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 372.
Checks are in use only between banks and bankers and their customers, and are design ed to facilitate banking operations. It is of their very essence to be payable on demand, because the contract between the banker and customer is that the money is payable on demand ; Harker v. Anderson, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 372; In re Brown, 2 Sto. 502, Fed. Cas. No. 1,985; Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Bank, 10 Wall. (U. S.) 647, 19 L. Ed. 1008; Wood River Bank v. Bank, 36 Neb. 744, 55 N. W. 239.
As between the holder of a check and the indorser it is required that due diligence be used in presenting them ; Lewis, Hubbard & Co. v. Supply Co., 59 W. Va. 75, 52 S. E. 1017, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 132; Start v. Tupper, 81 Vt. 19, 69 Atl. 151, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 213, 130 Am. St. Rep. 1015; and it should be protested in order to fix the liability of indorsers; 3 Kent (Lacey's ed.) 88; but it is not necessary to use diligence in presenting an ordinary check,• in order to charge the drawer, unless he has received damage by the delay; Buckner v. Finley, 2 Pet. (U. S.)
586, 7 L. Ed. 528; Little v. Bank, 2 Hill (N. Y.) 425 ; Daniels v. Kyle, 1 Ga. 304 ; 2 M. & R. 401; Syracuse, B. & N. Y. R. Co. v. Col lins, 57 N. Y. 641; Purcell v. Allemong, 22 Gratt. (Va.) 743; Taylor v. Sip, 30 N. J. L. 284; Stewart v. Smith, 17 Ohio St. 82 ; Mor rison v. McCartney, 30 Mo. 183; Cork v. Bacon, 45 Wis. 192, 30 Am. Rep. 712; Monte lius v. Charles, 76 111. 303. If not presented for payment within a reasonable time after issue, the drawer will be discharged from liability thereon to the extent of the loss caused by the delay ; Neg. Instr. Act § 186. Where one deposits a check in his bank and it is collected and credited, it is equivalent to payment to him in the ordinary course as though presented to another bank and paid over the counter ; American Nat. Bank of Nashville, Tenn., v. Miller, 229 U. S. 517, 33 Sup. Ct. 883, 57 L. Ed. —.
In common with other kinds of negotia ble paper, they must contain an order to pay money, and words of negotiability. This enables a bona fide holder for value to col lest the money without regard to the pre vious history of the paper ; Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. (U. S.) 1, 10 L. Ed. 865; Coddington v. Bay, 20 Johns. (N. Y.) 637, 11 Am. Dec. 342 ; Bank of Mobile v. Brown, 42 Ala. 108.
They must be properly signed by the per son or firm keeping the account at the banker's, as it is part of the implied con tract of the banker that only checks so sign ed shall be paid. The words "Agt. Glass Buildings" added to the signature of a check used for paying an individual debt of the agent, are enough to put the person receiving it on inquiry as to his authority to use the fund for such purpose ; Gerard v. McCor mick, 130 N. Y. 261, 29 N. E. 115, 14 L. R. A. 234, and note reviewing cases.
Post-dated checks are payable on the of their date, although negotiated hand. See Taylor v. Sip, 30 N. J. L. 284; Mohawk Bank v. Broderick, 10 Wend. (N. Y.) 304; In re Brown, 2 Sto. 502, Fed. Cas. No. 1,985. Where all the parties to a check reside in the same place, the holder has until the day following its date or receipt by him in which to present it.
A check, of itself, does not operate as an assignment of any part of the funds to the credit of the drawer with the bank, and the bank is not liable to the holder unless and until it accepts or certifies the check ; Neg. Instr. Act § 189; Doherty v. Watson, 29 W. N. C. (Pa.) 32.