p. 100.stamped paid, and canceled by cutting it with the spindle. A draft •on the Ninth National Bank of New York was filled out by the bookkeeper of P. H. Mitchell & Co. for the amount, payable to the Wilber National Bank, but it was not signed, and was subsequently ■destroyed. P. H. Mitchell & Co. continued their business during the day, paying checks and receiving money until between four and ■five y. m., the usual hour for closing business. The bank was not .opened for business December ninth, on which day the bankers made a general assignment' for the benefit of creditors. Prom December first to December ninth the defendant’s account was at .all times good for the amount of the check. The words “Paid December 8th, 188é, P. H. Mitchell & Co., Schenevus, N. Y.,” were canceled with a pen by a clerk of P. H. Mitchell & Co. at some hour during December ninth, and the check was delivered to ■the cashier of the Wilber National Bank, who called for it, and thereafter demanded its payment, which was refused, and thereupon the check was protested for non-payment and the usual notices ■mailed. The check was returned to the plaintiffs, who brought .this action in a Justice’s Court to recover the amount, with interest and one dollar and thirty-five cents expense of protest. The plaintiffs recovered a judgment for forty-eight dollars and forty-nine ■cents damages and five dollars costs, which was affirmed by the ‘County Court of Otsego county, from which judgment of affirmance the defendant appeals.
Graham de Lane, for the appellant.
J. B. Holmes, for the respondents.
'Construed by the custom of bankers, the transaction between the Wilber National Bank and P. H. Mitchell & Co. amounted to a (direction by the former to the latter to this effect: For the inclosed •check mail your draft on New York, or return-the check. The .drawee failed to send the draft, or to pay the check in any other way, and before doing so it was not authorized to mark the check, paid, or to charge it to the drawer’s account. The fact that the check was delivered to the drawee, and by it charged to the drawer’s account and marked .paid, did not discharge the drawer. (Turner
p. 101v.
The Bank of Fox Lake, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec., 434 ; S. C., 3 Keyes, 425, and 2 Trans. App., 344;
Burkhalter v.
The Second National Bank, 42 N. Y.,
538 ; Kelty v.
Second National Bank, 52 Barb., 328 .)
The fact that a check mailed by the holder to the drawee for payment is not paid, when it would have been had it been presented at the payee’s counter, is not, it seems, in this State, a defense in favor of the drawer, though by the- transaction the drawer lost his deposit (Indig v. The National City Bank, 80 N. Y., 100 ; Briggs v. Central National Bank, 89 id., 182 ) though it has been held otherwise. (Farwell v. Curtis, 1 Bissell, 160 ; Drovers’ Bank v. Anglo-American Packing Co,, 18 Ill. App., 191 .)
The judgment of the County Court is affirmed, with costs.
Hardin, P. J., and Martin, J., concurred..
Judgment affirmed, with costs.