1 This doctrine does not apply to bank notes. Bullard v. Bell, 1 Mas. 243, 252; Ballard v. Greenlmsh, 24 Me. 336,338; Fulton Bank v. Phoenix Hank, 1 Hall, 562, 577; 9 Op. Atty. Gen. 413. Nor to certificates of deposit, Shute v. Pacific Nat. Bank, 136 Mass. 487; Pardee v. Fish, 60 N. Y. 265. Contra is Tripp v. Curtenius, 36 Mich. 494. See also Laughlin v. Marshall. 19 Ill. 390.

2 Brooks v. Mitchell, 9 M. & W. 15; Barough v. White, 4 B. & C. 355; Gascoyne v. Smith, 1 McClel. & Y. 348. If, however, demand is actually made and payment refused, the paper is thereafter dishonored, Glasscock v. Balls, 24 Q. B. D. 13, 15: Dougan v. Small, 2 Kerr, 89.

3 Chartered Mercantile Bank v. Dickson, L. R. 3 P. C. 574: Morgan v. United States" 113 U. S. 476, 501; Rhodes v. Seymour, 36 Conn. 1, 6; Keyes v. Fenstermaker, 24 Cal. 329; Laughlin v. Marshall, 19 Ill. 390; Thielman v. Gueble, 32 La. An. 270; Nutting v. Burked, 48 Mich. 241; Parker v. Reddick, 65 Miss. 242; Collingwood v. Merchants' Bank, 15 Neb. 118, 121; McMonigal v. Brown, 45 Ohio St. 499, 504; Kampmann v. Williams, 70 Tex. 568, 571. See also National State Bank v. Weil, 141 Pa. 457.

Where a note on demand is indorsed within a reasonable time after its date, the indorsee has all the rights of an indorsee of a negotiable note on time where the indorsement was made before maturity; but what this reasonable time shall be must depend upon the facts of the case. It is not determined by any positive rule. (g) Nor is there a positive rule as to the present-ment of bank-checks; but * the rule as to overdue notes is applied with more strictness to them. (h)2 But still, one who takes a check that is overdue is said not to take it subject to all infirmities of title, if he exercises a reasonable caution in taking it; of which a jury is to judge.(i) And the drawer of a check is not discharged by any delay in presenting it which has not been actually injurious to him.1 In New York, it [has been] held that a presentment of a check for payment on the day after receiving it, would be sufficient to charge the maker.(jj) It may be remarked that priority in the drawing of a check gives the holder no preference of payment over checks subsequently drawn. (k)2 If a check be drawn on a bank where there are no funds, it need not be presented to maintain an action.(l) A check on a broker payable to bearer is a negotiable instrument, and may pass by indorsement so as to entitle the holder to sue the indorser as in the case of a bill of exchange. (m)

(d) Lockwood v. Crawford, 18 Conn. 361.

(e) Merritt v. Todd, 23 N. Y. 28; 1 Pars. Notes & Bills, 263.

(f) Holmes v. West, 17 Cal. 623.

(g) The question of reasonable time, within which a note due on demand must be indorsed after it is made, in order to shut out any equities between the maker and indorser, is purely a question of law. Per Shaw, C. J., Sylvester v. Crapo, 15 Pick. 93; Camp v. Scott, 14 Vt. 387.- Two days and even five months have been held to be within the limit. Dennett v. Wyman, 13 Vt. 485; Sandford v. Mickles, 4 Johns. 224. So one month. Ranger v. Carey, 1 Met. 369. On the other hand, under different circumstances, eight months, and two months, have been considered beyond it. American Bank v. Jenness, 2 Met. 288; Nevins v. Townshend, 6 Conn. 5; Camp v. Scott, 14 Vt. 387. See further, Wethey v. Andrews, 3 Hill (N. Y.), 582; Thompson v. Hale, 6 Pick. 259; Mudd v. Harper, 1 Md. 110; Carleton v. Bailey, 7 Foster (N. H.), 230; Ames v. Merriam, 98 Mass. 294; Bickford v. First etc. Bank, 42 Ill. 238.

(h) Boehm v. Sterling, 7 T. R. 423; Down v. Hailing, 4 B. & C 330; Rothschild v. Corney, 9 B. & C. 388; Brady v. Little Miami R, R, Co. 34 Barb, 249; O'Brien v. Smith, 1 Black, 99.

1 This may be called the New York doctrine, the leading case being Merritt v. Todd, 23 N. Y. 28, which has been followed in Pardee v. Fish, 60 N. Y. 265, and Parker v. Stroud, 98 N. Y. 379. See also Crim v. Starkweather, 88 N. Y. 339; Shutts v. Fingar, 100 N. Y. 539. But in Thielman v. Gueble, 32 La. An. 260, it was held that in order to charge the indorser of a demand note, even though it provide for interest, presentment must be made within a reasonable time, and Merritt v. Todd was criticised. Thielman v. Gueble was followed in Turner v. Iron Chief Mining Co. 74 Wis. 355.

2 In order to charge the drawer, when the time elapsing before presentment has been injurious to him (as by the failure of the bank), the payee of a check must present it within a reasonable time, and this has been defined as meaning that it must be presented or forwarded for collection either on the day it is received or the next day. Rickford v. Ridge, 2 Camp. 537; Robson v. Bennett, 2 Taunt. 388; Moule v. Brown, 4 Bing. N. C. 266; Boddington v. Schlencker, 4 B. & Ad. 752; Hare v. Henty, 10 C. B. n. s. 65; Bailey v. Bodenham, 16 C. B. N. s. 288; Prideaux v. Criddle, L. R. 4 Q. B. 455; Clark v. Nat. Bank, 2 MacArth. 249; Simpson v. Pacific Co. 44 Cal. 139; Woodruff v. Plant, 41 Conn. 344; Griffin v. Kemp, 46 Ind. 176; Cawein v. Browinski, 6 Bush, 457; Miller v. Mosely, 26 La. An. 667; Holmes v. Roe, 62 Mich. 199; Parker v. Reddick, 65 Miss. 242; Wear v. Lee, 87 Mo. 358; Taylor v. Sip, 30 N. J. 284; Burk-halter v. Second Nat. Bank, 42 N. Y. 538; Smith v. Miller, 43 N. Y. 171; First Nat. Bank v. Alexander, 84 N. C. 30; National State Bank v. Weil, 141 Pa. 457; Blair v. Wilson, 28 Gratt. 165, 171; Jones v. Heiliger, 36 Wis. 149.

(t) Rothschild v. Corney, 1 Dan. & L. 325; Foster v. Paulk, 41 'Me. 425; Mohawk Bank v. Broderick, 13 Wend. 133; London Banking Co. v. Groome, 8 Q. B. D. 288; Rochester Bank v. Harris, 108 Mass. 514; Bull v. Bank of Kasson, 123 U.S. 105; Ames, B. & N. Vol. I. 791, 792 n.

(jj) Johnson v. Bank of N. America,

5 Rob. 554; and see note 1, infra.

(k) Dvkes v. The Leather M. Bank, 11 Paige, 612.

(l) Foster v. Paulk, 41 Me. 425. See Wirth v. Austin, L. R. 10 C. P. 689.

(m) Keene v. Beard, 98 Eng. C. L. 372. See also Pars. Notes & Bills, 58.

1 Alexander v. Burchfield, 7 M. & G. 1067; Laws v. Rand. 3 C. B. n. s. 442; Keene v. Beard, 8 C. B. n. s. 372, 381; Robinson v. Hawksford, 9 Q. B. 52; Heywood v. Pickering, L. R. 9 Q. B. 428; Bull v. Bank of Kasson, 123 U. S. 105: Clark v. Nat. Bank, 2 MacArth. 249; Daniels v. Kyle, 1 Ga. 304, 5 Ga. 245; Stevens v. Park, 73 Ill. 387; Henshaw v. Root, 60 Ind. 220; Security Co. v. Ball, 107 Ind. 165,168; Gregg v George, 16 Kan. 546; Mordis v. Kennedy, 23 Kan. 408; Smith v. Jones, 2 Hush, 103; Succession of Kercheval, 14 La. An. 457; Emery v. Hobson, 63 Me. 32; Parker v. Reddick, 65 Miss. 242, 246; Morrison v. McCartney, 30 Mo. 183; Cogswell V. Rockingham Savings Bank, 59 N. H. 43; Cowing v. Altman, 79 N. Y. 167; Stewart v. Smith, 17 Ohio St. 82; Schoolfield v. Moon, 9 Heisk. 171; Blair v. Hoge, 28 Gratt. 165, 171; Kinyon v. Stanton, 44 Wis. 479; Compton v. Oilman, 19 W. Va. 312,317. But indorsers of checks, like indorsers of other negotiable paper, are discharged by laches in presentment or notice, although not injured thereby. Parker v. Reddick, 65 Miss. 242; Carroll v. Sweet, 128 N Y. 19; 2 Daniel, Negot. Inst. § 1587.

2 In England, a check is held to be, like an ordinary bill of exchange, merely an order upon the drawee, and in no sense an assignment or partial assignment of a deposit in the bank upon which it is drawn. Schroeder v. Central Hank, 34 L. T. Rep. 735, 24 W. R. 710; Hopkinson v. Forster, L. H. 19 Eq. 74. See also Rodick v. Gandell, 12 Beav. 325; 1 DeG. M. & G. 763. And in this country the law is the same in many jurisdictions. First Bank v. Whitman, 94 U. S. 343; St. Louis, etc. Ry. Co. v. Johnston, 133 U. S. 566, 574; Kay v. Hiller, 11 Col. 445; National Bank v. Second Nat. Bank, 69 Ind. 479; Moses v. Franklin Bank, 34 Md. 574; Holbrook v. Payne, 151 Mass. 383, 385; Brennan v. Merchants' Bank, 62 Mich. 343; Coates v. Doran, 83 Mo. 337; Creveling v. Bloomsbury Nat. Bank, 46 N. J. L. 255; O'Connor v. Mechanics' Bank, 124 N. Y. 324; Savior v. Bushong, 100 Ha. 23; Maginn v. Dollar Savings Bank, 131 Pa. 362; Pickle v. Muse, 88 Tenn. 380.

But in some States a check is held to be an assignment pro tanto of the drawer's claim against the bank upon which the check is drawn. Nat. Bank of America v. Indiana Hanking Co. 114 Ill.483; Roberts v. Corbin, 26 la 315; Taylor's Adm. v. Taylor's Assignee, 78 Ky. 470; Gordon v. Muchler, 34 La. An.604; Fonner v. Smith, 31 Neb. 107; Fogarties v. State Bank, 12 Rich. Law, 518; Pease v. Landauer, 63 Wis. 20.

See Laclede Bank v Schuler, 120 U. S. 511; 514; Boettcher v. Colorado Bank, 15 Col. 16; Chaffee v. Bank, 40 Ohio St. 1.