for whose honor it is paid are discharged, but the payer for honor is subrogated for, and succeeds to, both the rights and duties of the holder as regards the party for whose honor he pays and all parties liable to the latter.

Section 176. [WHERE HOLDER REFUSES TO RECEIVE PAYMENT SUPRA PROTEST.] Where the holder of a bill refuses to receive payment supra protest, he loses his right of recourse against any party who would have been discharged by such payment.

Section 177. [RIGHTS OF PAYER FOR HONOR.] The payer for honor, on paying to the holder the amount of the bill and the notarial expenses incidental to its dishonor, is entitled to receive both the bill itself and the protest.

§ 1207. Bills in parts or sets.

ARTICLE VII

BILLS IN A SET

Section 178.-[BILLS IN SETS CONSTITUTE ONE BILL.] Where a bill is drawn in a set, each part of the set being numbered and containing a reference to the other parts, the whole of the parts constitutes one bill.

Nevertheless as the following section shows the holder of a single part may be the owner of the whole bill.98

Section 179.-[RIGHT OF HOLDERS WHERE DIFFERENT PARTS ARE NEGOTIATED.] Where two or more parts of a set are negotiated to different holders in due course, the holder whose title first accrues is as between such holders the true owner of the bill. But nothing in this section affects the rights of a person who in due course accepts or pays the part first presented to him.

WHO IN

Section 180. [LIABILITY OF HOLDER DORSES TWO OR MORE PARTS OF A SET TO DIFFER

98 Caras v. Thalmann, 138 N. Y. App. D. 297, 123 N. Y. S. 97. See

also Casper v. Kuhne, 159 N. Y. App. D. 389, 144 N. Y. S. 502.

be discharged from liability thereon to the extent of the loss caused by the delay.

8

The statute follows the rule of the law merchant in discharging the drawer for delay in presentment only to the extent of his loss. This section qualifies section 71, for (in view of section 185) except as this section provides otherwise, section 71 is applicable to checks as well as to other demand bills. Now this section relates only to the discharge of the drawer of a check. Therefore, the indorser's liability, being governed by section 71, is totally discharged by delay in presentment.

It will be observed also that section 186 makes no provision in regard to notice of dishonor and therefore, since section 185 provides that in the absence of special provisions the law governing bills of exchange is applicable to checks, it follows that a failure to give notice of the dishonor of a check to the drawer within proper season discharges him absolutely and not merely to the extent of the injury which he has suffered; 10 and it also follows that the indorser of a check, like the indorser of an ordinary bill or note, is totally discharged not only by failure to make proper presentment but also by failure to give notice.11

Section 187. [CERTIFICATION OF CHECK; EFFECT OF.] Where a check is certified by the bank on which it is drawn, the certification is equivalent to an acceptance.12

8 In the Illinois and South Dakota Acts there is inserted after the word "issue" "and notice of dishonor given to the drawer as provided for in the case of bills of exchange."

'Empire Arizona Copper Co. v. Shaw (Ariz.), 181 Pac. 464; Cox v. Citizens' State Bank, 73 Kan. 789, 85 Pac. 762. See also Wileman v. King, (Miss. 1919), 82 So. 265; Rosenbaum v. Hazard, 233 Pa. 206, 82 Atl. 62, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 255, Ann. Cas. 1913 A, 1291; German Am. Bank v. Wright, 85 Wash. 460, 148 Pac. 769, Ann. Cas. 1917 D. 381.

10 See Ewald v. Faulhaber Stable Co,. 55 N. Y. Misc. 275, 105 N. Y. S. 114; Bacigalupo v. Parrilli, 112 N. Y. S. 1040; Kuflick v. Glasser, 114 N. Y. S. 870. But see Morris-Miller Co. v. Von Pressentin, 63 Wash. 74, 114 Pac. 912. 11 See Swift v. Miller, 62 Ind. App. 312, 113 N. E. 447; Carroll v. Sweet, 128 N. Y. 19, 27 N. E. 763, 13 L. R. A. 43. And, it seems, if the check was indorsed in payment of a debt, the debt also is discharged. See infra, § 1922a.

12 See National City Bank v. Titlow, 233 Fed. 838; Carnegie Trust Co. v.

§ 1209. Checks.

Section 185. [CHECK DEFINED.] A check is a bill of exchange drawn on a bank payable on demand. Except as herein otherwise provided, the provisions of this act applicable to a bill of exchange payable on demand apply to a check.

There are important differences between the legal effect of a check and of an ordinary bill of exchange: (1) A check is a representation that the drawee has in his hands funds to meet the check.2 (2) Laches in presentment discharges the drawer of a check only to the extent of his loss.3 (3) The effect of certification of a check in discharging drawer and indorser under Section 188 has no analogy in the acceptance of ordinary bills of exchange. (4) The reasonable time for presenting a demand bill may be extended by negotiating the bill, and though the same rule is applicable to checks so far as indorsers are concerned, the drawer's liability cannot be preserved by negotiating the check, which must be presented in order to charge the drawer (if the drawee bank is in the same place where the check is drawn) on the day following delivery, or (if the drawee bank is not in the place where the check is drawn) it must be sent forward for collection on the following day.7

4

Section 186.-[WITHIN WHAT TIME A CHECK MUST BE PRESENTED.] A check must be presented for payment within a reasonable time after its issue or the drawer will

2 In re Robinson, 256 Fed. 55; Barton v. People, 135 Ill. 405, 25 N. E. 776; Mulroney Mfg. Co. v. Weeks (Iowa), 171 N. W. 36; Foote v. People, 17 Hun, 218.

3 See Sec. 186 of the Act.

4 See Sec. 71.

5 Plover Sav. Bank v. Moodie, 135 Ia. 685, 110 N. W. 29, 113 N. W. 476; Columbian Banking Co. v. Bowen, 134 Wis. 218, 114 N. W. 451.

Dehoust v. Lewis, 128 N. Y. App. Div. 131, 112 N. Y. S. 559, and see cases in the following note.

7 Watt v. Gans, 114 Ala. 264, 21 So. 1011, 62 Am. St. Rep. 99; Cox v. Citizens' State Bank, 73 Kans. 789, 85 Pac. 762; First Nat. Bank v. Buckhannon, 80 Md. 475, 31 Atl. 302, 27 L. R. A. 332; Gordon v. Levine, 194 Mass. 418, 421, 80 N. E. 505, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1153, 120 Am. St. Rep. 565; Haggerty v. Baldwin, 131 Mich. 187, 91 N. W. 150; Martin v. Home Bank, 160 N. Y. 190, 54 N. E. 717; Kirkpatrick v. Puryear, 93 Tenn. 409, 24 S. W. 1130, L. R. A. 785; Gregg v. Beane, 69 Vt. 22, 26, 37 Atl. 248.

be discharged from liability thereon to the extent of the loss caused by the delay.

The statute follows the rule of the law merchant in discharging the drawer for delay in presentment only to the extent of his loss. This section qualifies section 71, for (in view of section 185) except as this section provides otherwise, section 71 is applicable to checks as well as to other demand bills. Now this section relates only to the discharge of the drawer of a check. Therefore, the indorser's liability, being governed by section 71, is totally discharged by delay in presentment.

It will be observed also that section 186 makes no provision in regard to notice of dishonor and therefore, since section 185 provides that in the absence of special provisions the law governing bills of exchange is applicable to checks, it follows that a failure to give notice of the dishonor of a check to the drawer within proper season discharges him absolutely and not merely to the extent of the injury which he has suffered; 10 and it also follows that the indorser of a check, like the indorser of an ordinary bill or note, is totally discharged not only by failure to make proper presentment but also by failure to give notice.11

Section 187. [CERTIFICATION OF CHECK; EFFECT OF.] Where a check is certified by the bank on which it is drawn, the certification is equivalent to an acceptance.12

8 In the Illinois and South Dakota Acts there is inserted after the word "issue" "and notice of dishonor given to the drawer as provided for in the case of bills of exchange."

'Empire Arizona Copper Co. v. Shaw (Ariz.), 181 Pac. 464; Cox v. Citizens' State Bank, 73 Kan. 789, 85 Pac. 762. See also Wileman v. King, (Miss. 1919), 82 So. 265; Rosenbaum v. Hazard, 233 Pa. 206, 82 Atl. 62, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 255, Ann. Cas. 1913 A, 1291; German Am. Bank v. Wright, 85 Wash. 460, 148 Pac. 769, Ann. Cas. 1917 D. 381.

10 See Ewald v. Faulhaber Stable Co,. 55 N. Y. Misc. 275, 105 N. Y. S. 114; Bacigalupo v. Parrilli, 112 N. Y. S. 1040; Kuflick v. Glasser, 114 N. Y. S. 870. But see Morris-Miller Co. v. Von Pressentin, 63 Wash. 74, 114 Pac. 912. 11 See Swift v. Miller, 62 Ind. App. 312, 113 N. E. 447; Carroll v. Sweet, 128 N. Y. 19, 27 N. E. 763, 13 L. R. A. 43. And, it seems, if the check was indorsed in payment of a debt, the debt also is discharged. See infra, § 1922a.

12 See National City Bank v. Titlow, 233 Fed. 838; Carnegie Trust Co. v.

TUTES.] In determining what is a "reasonable time" or an "unreasonable time," regard is to be had to the nature of the instrument, the usage of trade or business (if any) with respect to such instruments, and the facts of the particular case.

Section 194. [TIME, HOW COMPUTED; WHEN LAST DAY FALLS ON HOLIDAY.] Where the day, or the last day, for doing any act herein required or permitted to be done falls on Sunday or on a holiday, the act may be done on the next succeeding secular or business day.

Section 195. [APPLICATION OF ACT.] The provisions of this act do not apply to negotiable instruments made and delivered prior to the [taking effect] hereof.

Section 196. [CASES NOT PROVIDED FOR IN ACT.] In any case not provided for in this act the rules of [law and equity including] the law merchant shall govern. 18

Section 197. [REPEALS.] All acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act are hereby repealed.

Section 198. [TIME WHEN ACT TAKES EFFECT.] This [act] shall take effect on 19

18 Section 196 as drafted reads "In any case not provided for in this Act the rules of the law merchant shall govern." The words in brackets [law and equity including] were inserted in many States to harmonise the section with the Uniform Sales Act (Section 73), the Uniform Warehouse Receipts Act (Section 56), the Uniform Transfer of Stock Act (Section 18) and the Uniform Bills of Lading Act (Section 51). The object of sections such as these, is to clearly point out that no one of these acts pretends to be a complete

codification of the whole law upon each topic but that there are cases not provided for in each of the statutes. Another purpose is to leave room for the growth of new usages and customs so that none of these acts should put the law merchant in a straight jacket and thus prevent the further expansion of the law merchant.

19 Section 198 as drafted uses the word "chapter." In many States this term is inappropriate; therefore the word in brackets [Act] has been inserted in lieu of the word "chapter."