Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/834

 —

Bankers and Banking.

612 Sect.

7.

Protection to Bankers

paying Cheques.

So, again, the collecting banker's stamp on a cheque crossed generally would probably constitute it a cheque crossed specially to that banker. A banker paying a document ostensibly a crossed cheque to which his customer's name is forged as drawer is not protected (i). is (h).

Forged

Sub-Sect.

cheques.

Drafts on a banker.

Extent of protection.

Drafts

between offices of

bank.

4.

Drafts on a Banker.

A draft drawn by a branch on another branch or head the same bank, or vice versa, is not a bill, since the drawer and the drawee are in law the same person, and so not a cheque (A:). But it is " a draft or order drawn on a banker," and if payable to order on demand the banker is protected if he pay it in good faith, notwithstanding there may be a forged indorsement (I) or an unauthorised per pro. indorsement (m). The protection seems to apply to foreign as well as inland drafts {n). Payment, when within the protection, operates as a discharge of the draft or order (o). 1241.

office of

1242. Drafts between two branches or a branch and head office of same bank cannot be issued payable to bearer on demand, except by banks having power to issue their own bank notes Drafts of the above nature payable to order on demand cannot

same the

be crossed (5). The protection against forged indorsements would, however, generally be sufficient for the bank in paying (r). If such a draft bearing an ostensible crossing, but otherwise in order, be presented for payment across the counter, the banker

A

collecting banker may specially cross to himself (Bills of Exchange Act, & 4'i Vict. c. 61), s. 77 (6)). Transverse lines are not necessary to constitute crossing where a banker's name is put across the face of the cheque {ihid., Bankers habitually stamp all cheques collected by them, whether s. 76 (2)). " crossed or not, and the stamp is frequently horizontal, not transverse or " across the face of the cheque. The latter point would probably not be considered material. {i) It is not a cheque, but a mere piece of paper [Imperial Bank of Canada v. (Ji)

1882 (45

Ba7ik of Hamilton, [1903] A. C. 49). {k) Hence it is not within the protection of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 60 {Capital and Counties Bank v. Gordon, [1903]

A. C. 240). Capital and Counties Bank v. Gordon, sujora ; Stamp Act, 1853 (16 & 17 The section does not state that the payment must be in good 39), s. 19. faith, or in the ordinary course of business, but good faith is clearly a condition of protection. See Smith v. Union Bank of London (1875), L. E,. 10 Q. B. 291, 2Jer Blackburn, J., at p. 296. (m) Charles v. Blackwell (1877), 2 C. P. D. 151. {n) See note (?i), p. 602, ante. (0) Halifax Union v. Wheehoright (1875), L. R. 10 E.ch. 183, at p. 194. Ip) Bank Charter Act, 1844 (7 & 8 Vict. c. 32), ss. 10 and 11 Stamp Act, 1854 The words "bearer or holder" in the latter section (17 & 18 Vict. c. 83), s. 11. must be read as synonymous with "bearer." See note(^), p. 569, ante. 40 (g) They could have been crossed under the Grossed Cheques Act, 1876 (39 & A^ict. c. 81), where a cheque is defined as "draft or order drawn on a banker payable to bearer or to order on demand," but the definition was altered in the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 73, to "bill of exchange drawn on a banker payable on demand." Compare Capital and Counties Bank v. Gordon, supra, per Lord Lindley, at p. 250. They are not within the Revenue Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 55), s. 17, not being issued by a customer of the banker, but by the bank itself {Capital and Counties Bank v. Gordon, supra). (r) See note (l), supra. il)

Vict.

c.