Grist v. Osgood

521 P.2d 368, 90 Nev. 165, 14 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1001, 1974 Nev. LEXIS 345
Nevada Supreme Court·Decided April 19, 1974·No. No. 7184·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

OPINION

Per Curiam:

At issue is whether the obligation of a drawer of dishonored uncertified checks to pay the same is discharged by failure of the payee to demand payment thereof within a reasonable time. The district court ruled that his obligation was not discharged and entered judgment for the payee.

The checks were held by the payee for more than 30 days after the date or issue1 and, when finally presented for payment, were returned for lack of sufficient funds. This tardy presentment, however, does not per se discharge the drawer since [166] the record does not show that the drawee bank became insolvent during the delay thereby depriving the drawer of funds with which to cover the checks.2

The claimed error with respect to the allowance of attorney fees and costs is not entertained since it is tendered without supporting authority. General Electric Co. v. Bush, 88 Nev. 360, 368, 498 P.2d 366 (1972).

Affirmed.

Footnotes

“(a) Any endorser is discharged; and

“(b) Any drawer or the acceptor of a draft payable at a bank or the maker of a note payable at a bank who because the drawee or payor bank becomes insolvent during the delay is deprived of funds maintained with the drawee or payor bank to cover the instrument may discharge his liability by written assignment to the holder of his rights against the drawee or payor bank in respect of such funds, but such drawer, acceptor or maker is not otherwise discharged.

“2. Where without excuse a necessary protest is delayed beyond the time when it is due any drawer or endorser is discharged.”

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Grist v. Osgood, 521 P.2d 368, 90 Nev. 165, 14 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1001, 1974 Nev. LEXIS 345 (Neb. 1974).

521 P.2d 368 (Grist v. Osgood) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Antoine F. Harik, ph.d. v. Salim Harik, ph.d.
861 F.2d 139 (Sixth Circuit, 1988)