Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 355
Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 355.3-408 (2026)

Drawee not liable on unaccepted draft

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A check or other draft does not of itself operate as an assignment of funds in the hands of the drawee available for its payment, and the drawee is not liable on the instrument until the drawee accepts it. Effective: January 1, 1997 History: Repealed and reenacted 1996 Ky. Acts ch. 130, sec. 46, effective January 1, 1997. -- Created 1958 Ky. Acts ch. 77, sec. 3-408, effective July 1, 1960.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1963–1997 · leading case: Sheffer v. Chromalloy Mining & Mineral Div. of Chromalloy Am. Corp., 578 S.W.2d 594 (Ky. Ct. App. 1979).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sheffer v. Chromalloy Mining & Mineral Div. of Chromalloy Am. Corp., 578 S.W.2d 594 (Ky. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 2× “” KRS 355.3-408 concerns commercial paper and states: “[W]ant .”
Crider v. Franklin Bank & Trust Co., 481 S.W.2d 56 (Ky. Ct. App. 1972). “030, which pertains to contracts generally, and more specifically by KRS 355.3-408, wherein it is written that “want * * * of consideration is a defense as against any person not having the rights of a holder in due course.”
Harned v. Dawson, 505 S.W.2d 174 (Ky. Ct. App. 1974). “KRS 355.3-408. The situation presented here is not a case of partial failure of consideration which would authorize a defense pro tanto.”
Burrus v. Farmers Bank of Nicholasville, 938 S.W.2d 889 (Ky. Ct. App. 1997). “Burrus, have filed in the record their Affidavit to the effect that they “did not intend to be personally obligated” for the repayment of said note, such statements are insufficient to overcome the statutory presumption that they are KRS 355.”
Coal Operators Cas. Co. v. Johnson, 213 F. Supp. 146 (E.D. Ky. 1963). “§ 355.3-408. The defenses to the note asserted by the defendants that it lacks a corporate seal and the signature of corporate secretary and that it is without consideration are each untenable, under the facts and circumstances disclosed.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.