This section of the book is from the "Canadian Banking Practice" book, by John T. P. Knight.
Question 196.— On July 18th we sent a cheque on a branch of La Banque Ville Marie to that branch for collection. On July 26th (which would be the usual time to ask its fate), hearing of the suspension of the bank, we wired them to remit cash or return it at once, to which they replied that it had not been received. On the same day we notified the endorsers (from whom we have a general waiver of protest), that it had not been paid, and suggested that they notify the drawer.
The drawer writes that the cheque has not been charged to him, but that, as he sent it to the endorsees on July 14th, they had ample time to cash it before the suspension, and he disclaims any responsibility. As they are out-of-town customers, we claim that the cheque was forwarded in the ordinary course of business, and the drawer was notified of its non-payment as speedily as circumstances permitted. On whom do you think the loss (if any) should fall?
As the cheque has not turned up in the mails, as yet, what action should be taken ?
Answer.—We think the drawer is responsible notwithstanding the delay in presentation, assuming that there was no unreasonable delay on the part of the payee or the bank in sending the cheque forward.
If a cheque is not presented within a reasonable time, then under sec. 73a, the drawer is discharged to the extent of any damage he suffers by such delay, but delay in making presentment for payment is, under sec. 46, excused when the delay is caused by circumstances beyond his control. Delay in the post-office would, we think, come within this rule.