Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Kouvolan HO 30.09.1981 698/81 AI generated

Holder's subsequent acquisition of a bill does not revive the drawer's liability after the acceptor's payment.

Case Number Kouvolan HO 30.09.1981 698/81
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court of appeal dismissed the bank's claim against the drawer, ruling that the drawer was released upon the acceptor's payment. Although the bank later acquired the bill, this fact did not create a new claim against the original drawer. The court held that the legal obligation of the acceptor extinguished the drawer's liability, rendering the subsequent transfer ineffective for reviving that debt.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Bills Act 1871, Section 10; Section 11: The payment by the acceptor discharges the drawer's liability, and the holder's subsequent acquisition of the bill does not revive the drawer's obligation.

Keywords

AI generated
bill of exchange drawer liability acceptor payment discharge of debt subsequent acquisition negotiation of bill bank claim

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Bills Act 1871, Section 10
Bills Act 1871, Section 11

Cited Case Law

AI generated
KKO 5.5.1983 n:o 5335/82
KKO 1983-II-62
AI generated
appeal_1984_helsinki__301
Court allowed recovery of bank transfers made to a third party for a bankrupt company's debts.
kko-precedent_1989_17
Bank transfer deemed not received by debtor before bankruptcy filing, debt remains with bankruptcy estate.
kko-precedent_1991_66
Supreme Court upheld lower court ruling that share sales via shell company violated prohibition on self-dealing and were void.
appeal_1983_turku__774
Court dismissed claim for interest arrears on debt note where debt matured without specific demand.
kko-precedent_1998_24
Bank payment to guarantor before bankruptcy discharge deemed premature and recoverable under insolvency law.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

A:n 2.7.1979 asettama ja B:n hyväksymä, 2.10.1979 erääntyvä vekseli oli 2.7.1979 diskontattu pankkiin. B joutui 10.7.1979 konkurssiin. Samana päivänä B maksoi vekselin pankille. B:n konkurssipesän takaisinsaantikanteesta pankki velvoitettiin suorittamaan konkurssipesälle vekselin määrä. Pankin suoritettua konkurssipesälle vekselin sisällön konkurssipesä siirsi vekselin pankille, joka vekselin haltijana vaati A:lta (asettaja) vekselin määrää, minkä alioikeus tuomitsikin A:n maksamaan.

Hovioikeus katsoi, että maksavan (B:n) maksettua vekselin oli vekselisaaminen rauennut ja asettaja A vapautunut vekselivastuusta eikä se seikka, että pankki oli sen jälkeen saanut vekselin haltuunsa, perustanut pankille vekseliin perustuvaa saamisoikeutta asettajaa vastaan.

KKO:n ratkaisu:

Tuomio 5.5.1983 n:o 5335/82: Lopputulosta ei muuteta.

Ks. KKO:1983-II-62