Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 4.djvu/313

297 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. Vol. IV. FEBRUARY 15, 1891. NO. 7. THE DOCTRINE OF PRICE v. NEAL. THE plaintiff in this prominent case ^ was the drawee of a bill of exchange; the defendant was an indorsee for value in due course. The bill was paid on presentment, the drawee and holder being alike ignorant that the signature of the ostensible drawer was forged. Upon discovery of the forgery the plaintiff sought to recover the money on the ground that it had been paid under a mistake. But the Court of King's Bench gave judgment for, the defendant, Lord Mansfield delivering the opinion. The rule established by Price v. Neal, that a drawee pays (or accepts) at his peril a bill, on which the drawer's signature is forged, has been repeatedly recognized both in England and the United States.^ The same rule prevails in Scotland ^ and on the continent ^ 3 Burr. 1354; i W. Bl. 390, s. C This case, as well as most of those discussed in this paper, will be found in Professor Keener's valuable collection of Cases on Quasi- Contracts. ' Smith V. Mercer, 6 Taunt. 76; Cocks v. Masterman, 9 B. & C. 902; Hoffman v. Milwaukee Bank, 12 Wall. 181; Young v. Lehman, 63 Ala. 519, 523; First Bank v. Ricker, 71 111. 439, 441; Nat. Bank z Tappan, 6 Kas. 456; Comm. Bank v. First Bank, 30 Md. 11; Hardy v. Chesapeake Bank, 51 Md. 562, 585; Nat. Bank v. Bangs, 106 Mass. 441, 444; Danvers Bank v. Salem Bank, 151 Mass. 280, 282; Bernheimer V. Marshall, 2 Minn. 78; Stout v. Benoist, 39 Mo. 277, 299; Ins. Co. v. Bank, 60 N. H. 442, 446; Weisser v. Dennison, 10 N. Y. 68, 75; Park Bank v. Ninth Bank, 46 N. Y. 77; Salt Bank v. Syracuse Inst., 62 Barb. loi ; Hagen v. Bowery Bank, 64 Barb. 197; Nat. Bank v. Grocers' Bank, 2 Daly, 289; Ellis v. Ohio Co., 4 Oh. St. 628, 652; Levy V. U. S. Bank, i Binn. 36; People's Bank v. Franklin Bank, 88 Tenn. 299; City Bank v. Nat. Bank, 45 Tex. 203, 218; Rouvant v. San Antonio Bank, 63 Tex. 610; Bank of St. Albans v. Farmers' Bank, 10 Vt. 141; Johnson v. Bank, 27 W. Va. 343, 348, 359; Ryan v. Bank, 12 Ont. R. 39. The ill-considered case, McKleroy v. Southern Bank, 14 La. An. 458, is a solitary ^ Clydesdale Bank v. Royal Bank (Court of Sess., March 11, 1876).