First National Bank of Charlotte v. Alexander

Smith, C. J., after stating the case. The law is well settled that the holder of such check, unless his diligence is quickened by information of the precarious condition of the drawee, and he then unreasonably delays to make demand of payment, may present it during business hours on the next day. “ Banks would be kept in a continual fever,” remarks a recent author on this subject, “ if they were compelled to send out a check the moment it was received.” 2 Danl. Neg. Inst., § 1590. If the bank-be in the same place in which the check is drawn, and suspends payment after *32 the opening of business hours on the following day, so that the money cannot then be collected, the omission to present it earlier when it might perhaps have been paid is no defence to the drawee. Ib., §3591. The verdict, inconsistent with itself on the first issue un--der the explanation of the court, repels the imputation of negligence in the plaintiff, and while responding to 'the second issue and acquitting its officers of personal knowl* edge, it charges them with having good reason (or as we understand it sufficient information) to awaken their susph cion of impending insolvency. Upon these conflicting findings we think the course pur* sued by His Honor right and proper in setting aside the verdict and remitting the matter to another jury. In doing this there is no error, and this will be certified. No error. Affirmed.