Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/820

 — Bankers and Banking.

598 Sect.

Sect.

4.

Collection of Bills of

Exchange. Collection of bills of

exchange. Sub-agents.

4.

Collection of Bills of

Exchange.

1223. If a banker undertakes the collection of bills (l) for a customer he is bound to present them for acceptance and payment in accordance with the provisions of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (m), and must give notice of dishonour to his customer if they are dishonoured (n) If he employs a sub-agent, he is responsible to the customer for negligence on the part of such sub-agent (o), but has a remedy .

over against the sub-agent. Money received on a bill by a sub-agent is in law received by the banker, apart from any question of account between him and the sub-agent (p). A banker receiving bills for collection from another banker is agent for the remitting banker, not for that banker's customer unless, therefore, the banker has distinct notice that the bills are the property of the customer, they may be treated as the property of the remitting banker (q), and are subject to a lien for any balance due from the latter (r). A banker has a lien on a bill handed to him by a customer for collection, if the customer be or become indebted to him (s). If the customer has indorsed the bill, the banker has a remedy on it against the customer to the extent of such indebtedness (i). Mere indorsement for collection, without indebtedness, gives no such right (a), nor does indorsement necessarily imply parting with the entire property in the bill (b). Whether the customer parts with the entire property depends on the nature of the dealing between him and the banker. Entering as cash before receipt of the money has been held evidence only of the banker's having taken the bill in his own right (c). Whether it has greater effect

Lien.

[1)

For forms of

bill of

exchange,

see

Encyclopaedia of Forms,

Vol.

II.,

pp. 510, 511.

& 46 Vict. c. 61. See, further, title Bills of Exchange etc. Compare Bank of Van Diemen^s Land v. Bank of Victoria (1871), L. E. 3 P. C. 526 Bank of Scotland v. Dominion Bank {Toronto), [1891] A. C. 592. Prince v. Oriental Bank (o) Mackersy v. Ramsays (1843), 9 CI. & F. 818 And see, further, title Agency, p. 193, Corporation (1878), 3 App. Cas. 325. ante. For form of acknowledgment excluding this liability, see Encyclopaedia of (m) 45 (n)





Forms, Vol. II., p. 472. (p) Mackersy v. Ramsays, supra. (q) Johnson v. Robarts (1875), 10 Ch. App. 505.

Compare Ex parte Armitstead,

(1828), 2 Gl. & J. 371. Compare (r) Ex parte Froggatt, Re Barker (1843), 3 Mont. D. & De G. 322. Prince v. Oriental Bank Corporation, supra, at p. 335 ; Ex parte Sargeant, Re Burrough (1810), 1 Rose, 153. (s) Giles V. Perkins (1807), 9 East, 12; Ex parte Schofield, Re Firth (1879), 12

Re Dikvorth

Ex parte Barkworth, Re Harrison Daivson v. Isle, [1906] 1 Ch. 633 G. & J. 194. Compare Giles v. Perkins, supra, at p. 14. There being no consideration (Ex parte Schofield, Re Firth, supra, per

Ch. D. 337 (1858), 2 {t)

(a)





De

Brett, L.J.,

Ex

at p. 343). Schofield,

Re Firth, supra; Ex parte Barkworth, Re Harrison, be merely by way of additional security. (c) Giles V. Perkins, supra ; Ex parte Barkworth, Re Harrison, supra (bills not due) Compare Gaden v. NewThompson v. Giles (1824), 2 B. & C. 422. foundland Savings Bank, [1899] A. C. 281, at p. 286 ; Dawson v. Isle, supra. (6)

supra.

parte

It

.



may