A check being an order payable upon demand and negotiable should be treated as to demand as a demand draft. Generally speaking, a check therefore resembles a demand draft, but business convenience has produced one very important difference. A check, like a demand draft, is not entitled to days of grace,1 unless it is post-dated upon its face;2 nor is the drawer of the check entitled to claim a demand unless he has been injured thereby,3 and then he is released only to the extent of his injury.4 But as to the indorser of a check, the same rule prevails as to a demand draft,5 except, perhaps, that a check, unless it be a bank check or a certified check, cannot be put into circulation,8 although it has been suggested that it can

14 Van Hoesen v. Van Alstyne, 3 Wend. 75. This decision is, of course, wrong. The upper court expresses its regret that the lower court did not do justice secundum artem, and then proceeds to make this astounding ruling, which is not so bad as to demand, but is wholly inexcusable as to the notice.

15 See Sec. 251, ante.

16 See Sec. 252, ante.

1 See Sec. 206, ante, note 2.

2 See Sec. 206, ante, note 8.

3 Exchange Bank v. Sutton Bank, 78 Md. 577; Allen v. Kramer, 2 Bradw. 205; Offutt v. Rucker, 2 Ind. App. 350; Springfield Fire Ins. Co. v. Tincher, 30 I11. 399 (in this case the document was a check, but the court treats it as a demand draft, and makes a correct ruling, but uses an incorrect dictum); Gough v. Staats, 13 Wend. 549; Gregg v. George, 16 Kan. 546; Henshaw v. Root, 60 Ind. 220; Stewart v. Smith; 17 Ohio St 82.

4 Pack v. Thomas, 13 Smedes & M. 1; In re Brown, 2 Story, 502; Griffin v. Kemp, 46 Ind. 172; Woodin v. Frazer, 38 N. Y. Super. Ct. 190.

5 Veazie Bank v. Winn, 40 Me. 60; Parker v. Reddick, 65 Miss. 242; Mohawk Bank v. Broderick, 13 Wend. 133; First Nat. Bank v. Miller, 37 Neb. 500; Gough v. Staats, 13 Wend. 549.

6 See the second and fourth cases in the last note. Nat. State Bank v. Weil, 141 Pa. 457: Industrial Co. v. Weakley, 103 Ala. 458; Gif-ford v. Hardell, 88 Wis. 53a But Stephens v. McNeill, 26 Barb. 651, and Middleton Bank v. Morris, 28 Barb. 616, recognize that a check may be put into circulation, especially as to a party who knew that was the intention. See also Taylor v. Wilson, 11 Met. 44 As to bank checks, McDonald v. Mosher, 23 111. App. 206, states the rule with positiveness that they may be put into circulation, and Nutting vbe so treated.7 Therefore, as to the regular indorser of a check, or as to a drawer who has been injured, the check must have been presented for payment within a reasonable time under all the circumstances.8 If the parties reside in the same place, that reasonable time is at most the next day after its receipt by the holder.9 If the parties, holder and drawee, do not reside in the same place, the check should be forwarded upon the next day after its receipt.10 But the check may be put through the usual course of business, though that course may be circuitous.11 It is not doubted that a party may always deposit a check in a bank for collection or for deposit, and the presentment is reasonable if it is consumed in the check's passage through banks;12 or if the time is taken up, where a check is payable to a principal, in transmitting the check to the principal, the delay is reasonable.13 The loss of the check may well occasion delay, but delay is excused only to the extent that it is rendered necessary.14 But subject to the above qualification and other excuses for delay,15 the rule is held quite strictly as to checks. A delay of three days, where the parties resided in the same town, or of two weeks, or of six days, or of seven days, or of thirteen days, or of ten months, have been held unreasonable; but each case must be examined to ascertain the varying facts in each case.16 There is, however, no question that the person to whom the check is intrusted for collection stands in such a relation to the holder that the holder will be responsible for such person's negligence.17 Some courts impose upon a person who takes a check in payment of a draft or note the utmost diligence, and require a presentment for payment upon the same day.18 This rule is enforced with especial severity against a bank, or other person acting as collection agent, which takes a check for a collection it is making,19 and when the collecting agent is being held by the person for whom the collection is being made; but one court mistakenly applies this rule as between the drawer and payee of the check, and holds that without instant diligence the original claim is lost.20 But other courts do not admit this rule.21 We have already discussed the rule that applies where a check or draft is sent directly to the payee.22 Such conduct is prima facie negligent,23 and the holder becomes responsible for the drawee's negligence.24 The rule that we have been considering applies to the drawer only when he can show an injury. Generally speaking, he can show an injury when the bank fails during the time of delay,25 provided it appears that the bank failed with funds to the amount of the check to the drawer's credit.26 It will not be enough for the drawer to show that his check would probably have been paid, unless he go further and show that he had an obligatory arrangement with the bank whereby his check would have been paid, and in that way had in the bank sufficient funds to pay the check, and that he lost those funds entirely.27 The reason of this rule is plain. If he drew out all his money, he lost nothing by the delay. The bank would not have been required to make a partial payment on the check, and hence the drawer cannot claim an injury.28 If he has drawn his funds out of the bank, even though the check would have been paid if presented at a proper time, he has suffered no injury, because the non-presentment of the check did not affect him in the least;29 nor will it be an injury to him that although he drew out his funds, the assignee of the bank recovered from him the money drawn out.30 Nor will the loss of a secret equity between the drawer and the payee of the check release the drawer as against an assignee of the check who has failed to make a due presentment at the bank.51 Where a man has a special kind of money deposited which depreciates in value pending the holder's delay, the drawer will be released pro tanto.32