Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vaasan HO 13.06.1985 455/85 AI generated

Claim dismissed as statute of limitations expired for bill of exchange holder against other parties.

Case Number Vaasan HO 13.06.1985 455/85
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim against other parties to a bill of exchange as it was time-barred. The plaintiff had recovered the bill from the bank but failed to sue other debtors within six months of the bill's acceptance. The court ruled that the statute of limitations expired by operation of law, barring the claim entirely.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Vekselilain 48 §; 70 §:n 3 momentti: The statute of limitations for a bill of exchange holder to claim against other parties begins running from the date of acceptance of the bill, and expiration is deemed to occur by operation of law.

Keywords

AI generated
bill of exchange statute of limitations acceptance date operation of law time bar Vekselilaki holder in due course

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Vekselilain 48 §
Vekselilain 70 § 3 momentti

Cited Case Law

AI generated
KKO:1937-II-207
AI generated
kko-precedent_1990_38
Supreme Court dismisses guarantor's claim; renewal of bills after notice of discharge does not release guarantor.
kko-precedent_1993_167
Supreme Court allows return of payment for expired bill when bank failed to prove claim under bill of exchange law.
kko-precedent_1997_60
Supreme Court remands case for further preparation as guarantee validity claims were not clearly unfounded.
appeal_1983_turku__774
Court dismissed claim for interest arrears on debt note where debt matured without specific demand.
kko-precedent_1987_51
Seller retained title until full payment; buyer's bank payment insufficient as seller remains liable on protested bill.

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, joka oli siirtomerkinnöin diskontannut vekselin pankkiin, oli maksettuaan pankin sittemmin protestoiman vekselin sisällön korkoineen pankille saanut vekselin pankilta siirtomerkinnöin takaisin haltuunsa. A:n muita vekselivelallisia kohtaan nostamaa takautumiskannetta pidettiin vekselin siirtäjän takautumisoikeuteen perustuvana ja A:n katsottiin velkoneen lunastamaansa vekseliä muilta vekselivelallisilta siirtäjän takautumisoikeuden perusteella eikä VekseliL:n 48 §:ssä tarkoitettuna vekselin haltijana. Näin ollen kanne olisi pitänyt nostaa VekseliL:n 70 §:n 3 momentin mukaisesti 6 kk:n kuluessa A:n suorittamasta vekselin lunastamisesta. Kanne hylättiin vanhentuneena ja vanhentuminen otettiin huomioon viran puolesta.

Ks. KKO:1937-II-207

Aurejärvi, Erkki: Vekselit, 1978, ss. 211, 250-251

Vrt. Rekola, Aarne: Saamisoikeuden vanhentuminen, 1938, ss. 376

Telaranta, K.A.: Arvopaperioikeus, 1981, s. 218-219

I-jaosto

Lainvoimainen