But where the drawers drew out their entire account in the bank before its failure, they are liable to protect the check; and this, though the bank would probably have paid it at any time before the day of the failure, and although its assignee (under the federal bankruptcy act) recovered from the drawers the money drawn out by them on that day. Ibid. Dousman v. New Richmond, in 88 Wis. [See Gifford v. Hardell, in 88 Wis., 538.]

B, a resident of the village of Waukesha, having, through the whole time here in question, funds subject to his check, in the hands of O. M. T., a private banker in said village, erased from a blank check upon the First National Bank, of Milwaukee, the words First National" and wrote over them the name of O. M. T., neglecting to erase the words "Bank of Milwaukee;" and dated and signed the check, inserting the sum to be paid and the name of W as payee and delivered it to W, who was a resident of said village and known to O. M. T. W soon after sold the check to plaintiff, a resident of the same village, who had done business there for six years, had a store within a few rods of O. M. T.'s bank, and had sometimes transacted banking business at the same. Nine days after the date of the check, and about a week after plaintiff became the holder, O. M. T. suspended payment, and the check which had not previously been presented to him, though afterwards presented by the payee, was never paid. In an action by the holder against the drawer, where the former claimed that the check was false and fictitious because there was no such bank as that named therein, while defendant claimed that the non-payment was caused by plaintiff's negligence; Held, That the drawee of the check should probably be regarded as sufficiently certain from the face of the instrument itself, and the unerased words "Bank of Milwaukee" as coming within the principle, false demonstratio non nocet. (2) That if that be doubtful, the above facts show that both W. and the plaintiff had full knowledge of who the drawee was, and of his place of business, in time to have obtained a payment of the check on presentation to him, and both were guilty of laches sufficiently to defeat the action. Cork v. Bacon, 45 Wis., 192.

Questions put to W. on his direct examination by defendant, inquiring whether he knew O. M. T.'s bank and place of business, when he took the check; whether he had previously received from defendant any similar check, payable at the same bank; whether O. M. T. ever paid to him money on any such check; whether he Informed plaintiff, when he passed to him the check in suit, whom and what bank it was drawn upon; and whether he (witness) knew, when he took said check, where it was payable-were improperly ruled out. Ibid.

Certified

SECTION 1684-3. Where a check is certified by the bank on which it is drawn, the certification is check. equivalent to an acceptance.

NOTE-The rule as to due care is [in] the presentation of a check drawn on a bank at a distant point is satisfied if the check is forwarded by the last mail of the day after its receipt and is presented at any time before the close of business on the day succeeding its receipt at the place of business of the drawee bank. Lloyd v. Osborne, 92 Wis., 93.

In the absence of any evidence as to when the hours of business closed according to the custom of banks in a certain city, it cannot be assumed that they close as early as 3 P. M., the hour when a bank at that place suspended business. Ibid.

The payee of a check had been in the habit of receiving letters. from the drawers and others through the post office at N. though he lived and had his place of business at S, a few miles distant, to which latter place, by his direction, such letters were forwarded by the postmaster at N in the regular course of the mails. The check was addressed to him at N and was received there and forwarded to him at S in due course. Held, that, with reference to. the rule requiring diligence in the presentation of the checks, he was not chargeable until it arrived at S. Ibid.

SECTION 1684-4.

Where the holder of a check procures it to be accepted or certified the drawer and all indorsers are discharged from liability thereon.

SECTION 1684-5. A check of itself does not operate as an assignment of any part of the funds to the credit of the drawer with the bank, and the bank is not liable to the holder, unless and until it accepts or certifies the check.

NOTE AS between the drawer of a check and the holder thereof for value, the former having a deposit in the bank sufficient to pay the same, there is an equitable assignment of such fund to the amount of the check, and the drawer cannot arbitrarily stop its payment. Pease v. Landauer, 63 Wis., 20.

Notes no part of chapter.

Sections repealed.

OTHER PROVISIONS.

SECTION 1684-6. The notes to the foregoing sections of this chapter shall be no part of this chapter, but may be resorted to for purposes of construction and interpretation. The secretary of state shall, in preparing the session laws of 1899, print such notes in connection with the sections to which they apply.

SECTION 2. Sections 176, 1675, 1676, 1677, 1678, 1679, 1680, 1681, 1682, 1683 and 1684, of the statutes of 1898 are hereby repealed. Sections 1944, 1945, 4143, 4194, 4425 and 4458 of said statutes are not affected by this act, and nothing herein shall be deemed to repeal any part of such sections. All other provisions inconsistent with this chapter are repealed.

SECTION 3. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage and publication.

Approved May 5, 1899.

effect of written promise to accept, | CORPORATION—
1680i.