Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/815

 — — Part

III.

.

Business of Banking.

593

The banker may perhaps

also escape liabiliiy, if he can show the proceeds of the cheque have in fact reached the hands of the true owner, or been applied for his benefit (/i).

tliat

whom an uncrossed cheque is paid in for a holder, and may cross it generally or specially (i) He may cross it specially to himself (k), but does not thereby obtain any protection under sect. 82 of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 [1). 1213. The banker to

collection

1214.

^^ct.

3.

Collection of Cheques. -Right to

is

A banker

has a lien over cheques paid in for collection (m). Sub-Sect.

2.

Lien.

Crossed Cheques.

1215. The fact that a cheque is crossed in no way affects the banker's duties as to presentation and notice of dishonour. Besides the usual rights of a holder with regard to crossing, a banker to whom a cheque is crossed specially may again cross it specially to another banker for collection (ii). Where a cheque crossed generally is sent to a banker for collection he may cross it specially to himself (o).

1216. Subject to certain conditions, the banker is protected in collection of crossed cheques against liability to the true owner (p) The cheque must be crossed when he receives it, for a banker crossing an uncrossed cheque specially to himself (q) the

Collection of crossed cheques.

Protection to ^^^iker.

.

acquires no protection

(r).

Where an uncrossed cheque

is crossed by a person having do so, e.g., one innocently in possession of it under a forged indorsement, who is not a holder, it is doubtful whether such crossing protects the collecting banker (s).

no power

to

Where

the

protection

attaches,

it

covers the

receipt

of

the Extent

cheque and every step taken in the ordinary course of business and intended to lead up to the receipt of payment {a), such, for instance, Bevan v. The National Bank (1906), (h) Eeid v. Righy, [1894] 2 Q. B. 40 23 T. L. E. 65. (i) Ahrokerri {Atlantic) Mines, Ltd. v. Economic Bank, [1904] 2 K. B. 465 Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 77 (2). The words (k) Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 77 (6). "sent to a banker" presumably include "brought," i.e. by the customer himself. (Z) Bissell V. Fox (1884), 51 L. T. 663; Capital and Counties Bank y. Gordon, See note (2?), infra. [1903] A. C. 240. (m) Thompson Y. Giles (1824), 2 B. & C. 422 Misa v. Currie (1876), 1 App. Cas. Compare Great Western Rail. Co. v. London and County 554, at pp. 565, 569, 573. Banking Co. in C. A., [1900] 2 Q. B. 464. In Akrokerri (Atlantic) Mines, Ltd. v. Economic Bank, supra, Bigham, J., treats collection as a special purpose excluding lien, but the above authorities, it is submitted, must prevail. For forms of {n) Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 77 (5). crossings, see Encyclopaedia of Forms, Vol. II., pp. 515, 516. (0) Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 77 (6).





[p) Ibid., Iq)

Under

s. s.

82.

77

(6), ihid.

Fox (1885), 53 L. T. 193 Gordon v. London City and Midland Bank, [1902] 1 K. B. 242, affirmed sub nom. Capital and Counties Bank v. (r) Bissell v.



Gordon, supra. If so held, it would have to be on a wide construction of the words " bears its face" insect. 76 of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61). Compare Simmons v. Taylor (1858), 4 C. B. (n. s.) 463, 467 (case of paying banker). (a) Cap)ital and Counties Bank v. Gordon, supra, per Lord Macnaghten, at p. 244. (s)

across

H.L.-

Q Q

of

protection,