Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Chandler Motors Inc. v. Dunham

Decided: March 22, 1974.

CHANDLER MOTORS, INC., A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN E. DUNHAM AND FRANKLIN STATE BANK, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, V. CONCORD INSURANCE COMPANY, THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT



Kolovsky, Fritz and Crane.

Per Curiam

On May 28, 1970 defendant Dunham purchased an automobile from plaintiff under a retail installment contract. He delivered to plaintiff, as part of the purchase price, a draft which had been issued by Concord Insurance Company to Dunham and Franklin State Bank in the sum of $2250.

The draft, dated May 25, 1970, read in pertinent part as follows:

Upon acceptance by Concord Insurance Company, Fidelity Union Trust Company, Newark, New Jersey, will pay and remit without charge to the order of Dunham and Franklin State Bank the sum of $2250.

Before delivery to plaintiff, the draft was indorsed by Dunham and by the Franklin State Bank.

Plaintiff deposited the draft in its bank. When that deposit was made does not appear. However, it does appear that the draft did not reach the Fidelity Union Trust Company until June 15, 1970, at which time it was dishonored because the drawer and acceptor named therein, Concord Insurance Company, had had its assets frozen by order entered on June 12, 1970 by the Commissioner of Banking and Insurance.

Two years later, in June 1972, plaintiff instituted this action seeking to recover $2250 from both Dunham and Franklin State Bank based on their indorsement of the draft and seeking to recover $2250 from Dunham as the alleged balance of the purchase price due under the underlying obligation, the retail installment sales contract.

Plaintiff appeals from the judgment for defendants entered by the court after trial without a jury. Concomitant judgments finding no cause for action on a third-party complaint and cross-claims filed by defendants are not involved in this appeal.

We affirm. The trial court's finding that timely notice of dishonor of the draft was not given to defendants-indorsers is fully supported by the record and mandated its conclusion that plaintiff is not entitled to recover.

Timely notice of dishonor was required to be given the indorsers, N.J.S.A. 12A:3-501 (2) (a), there being no legally recognized excuse for not giving it. See N.J.S.A. 12A:3-511. The failure to give timely notice of dishonor discharged the indorsers from any liability on the draft. N.J.S.A. 12A:3-502 (1) (a).

Plaintiff's argument that no notice of dishonor was required because allegedly the indorsements made by defendants were made "after maturity," see N.J.S.A. 12A:3-501(4), lacks merit. The last cited section applies only where the indorsement was made after the instrument was "over due," a situation which did not exist in this case where the draft was indorsed by defendants within three days of its date of issue and 18 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.