UnW.!ll«^ of CUComt^
 
 DIGEST of LEGAL OPLNIONS 
 
 of 
 
 THOMAS B. PATON, General Counsel of the American Bankers Association, 
 
 which have been published in the issues of the Journal of the American 
 
 Bankers Association from July, 1908, to June, 1919, inclusive 
 
 With an Index 
 
 Digested by 
 
 THOMAS B. PATON, Jr. 
 
 of the New York Bar, Assistant to the General Counsel 
 
 Published by the 
 
 AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION 
 
 5 Nassau Street 
 
 New York 
 
 1919
 
 ri<- 
 
 :50/ 
 
 Copyright, 1919 
 
 by the 
 
 American Bankers Association 
 
 New York
 
 PREFACE 
 
 FROIV I July, 1908 , t o June , 1919, th ere h ave been publ is hed in the Journal of the American 
 Bankers Association the legal opinions of its General Counsel. Inasmuch as there have 
 accumulated during the past eleven years as many as 1,346 of these opinions, it was 
 thought advisable by the Executive Council in the interests of all the members that a digest 
 of them be made and pubUshed. Accordingly this Digest has been prepared and an attempt 
 has been made in each case to write, in concise form, a statement of the facts, followed by 
 the opinion. It seemed best from the busy banker's point of view, not to deal too much 
 in detail in a book of this kind but rather to state in a terse way the conclusions which a 
 banker or other business man may wish to know, without taking the time to read through 
 the citations of legal decisions or the discussion of underlying principles or reasons upon 
 which the opinions are based. A fuller treatment of the subject quoting the basic legal 
 authorities or discussion can always be had by referring to the full text from which the 
 digest was made. 
 
 For the variety of subjects treated and their practical bearing upon banking operations, 
 the bankers are solely responsible as it is they who have voluntarily submitted questions 
 on the problems confronting them in every day business. It would then seem to follow 
 that the book has the advantage of containing a selection of subjects confined to those mat- 
 ters only which have been troubling bankers most and which have already proved of suf- 
 ficient interest to cause them to request legal advice. 
 
 It is, of course, understood that the opinion of a lawyer, even though based on de- 
 cisions of the courts of last resort or, in the absence of legal precedent, reasoned out upon 
 sound legal principles, still remains an opinion. At most the reader can choose to use it 
 and to depend upon it as a possible guide and source of information, and for these objects 
 this book is published. 
 
 Thomas B. Baton, Jr. 
 
 New York, N. Y., July 1, 1919.
 
 ACCEPTANCE AND CERTIFICATION 
 
 Certification after banking hours 
 
 1. (Ala.) A bank certifies or pays a 
 customer's check after banking hours and 
 the customer, before banking hours of the 
 next day seeks to stop pa}Tnent. The ques- 
 tion was raised whether the payment or 
 certification was binding on the customer. 
 Opinion: Sucli payment or certification is 
 probably valid, although the point has never 
 been directly passed upon by the courts in a 
 case between the customer and the bank. 
 Vol. 5, p. 19, July, 1912. 
 
 Acceptance must be written 
 
 2. (Ark.) A livestock company in- 
 structed its bank to honor a draft drawn 
 in its name by C and D, who were buying 
 stock for it, and the bank agrec<l to such in- 
 struction, telephoning a prospective seller of 
 live stock that the check for $4,000 was good. 
 Eelying on this oral promise to pay the 
 amount, the cattle are turned over to C and 
 D. Later, the live stock company stopped 
 payment on the check, claiming that C and 
 D had no authority to draw it or to buy so 
 large an amount of stock. The holder seeks 
 to hold the bank liable on its statement. 
 Opinion: While a bank which promises over 
 the telephone to pay a check cannot be held 
 on such promise, the acceptance not being 
 in writing, the bank may be held liable to 
 the holder Avhcre, by agreement between the 
 bank and depositor, the deposit is aj)i)ropri- 
 ated for the paymciit of such check. If there 
 are special circumstances from which it 
 would appear that the depositor assigned a 
 certain amount of his deposit witli the con- 
 sent of the bank, the latter, although it 
 could not be held liable as acceptor of the 
 check, might be held as trustee of a specific 
 deposit or as a debtor to the assignee for the 
 amount so assigned. Vol. 9, p. 827, Ajiril, 
 1917. 
 
 3. (111.) A bank was requested to cer- 
 tify check by wire. It refused on the alleged 
 ground that the check did not transfer tlie 
 funds until it reached the bank and that the 
 depositor could revoke the paynieiit after it 
 was certified. Opinion: A bank can certify 
 by wire and after such certification the 
 drawer has no right to stop payment. While 
 an acceptance, to be valid, must be in writing, 
 there is no requirement that the acceptance 
 
 in all cases must be written on the bill. Vol. 
 10, p. 4GG, Dec, 1917. 
 
 4. (Ind.) In all states where the Negoti- 
 able Instruments Law is in force and in other 
 states where the statutt>s require acceptance 
 to be in writing, a promise over the telephone 
 to pay a check, not being in writing, does 
 not bind the drawee; but in Indiana where 
 the common law rule prevails that verbal 
 acceptances are valid, such telephone promise 
 would probably bind the drawee in favor of 
 one who in reliance thereon cashed the 
 check. Where, however, the drawee simply 
 answers that the check is ''good'' or "all 
 right" without coupling with such answer 
 any specific promise to pay, such answer is 
 insufficient to bind the bank as an acceptor. 
 Vol. 3, p. 337, December. 191(». 
 
 Note: The Negotiable Instruments Law re- 
 quiring acceptances to be in writing was passed 
 in Indiana in April, 1913. 
 
 5. (Ohio) The indorser of a check at- 
 tempted to cash it at Bank A, which bank 
 as a precaution teleplioned Bank P, the 
 drawee. In reply to tlie question whether or 
 not the check was good, Bank P said "yes,'' 
 and when asked if it would protect Bank A 
 on the check, it replied over the telephone, 
 "We will.'' Bank A cashed the check on 
 these representations and upon dishonor 
 wishes to hold the drawee liable, because the 
 indorser proved wothless. Opinion: Bank A 
 cannot hold Bank P on the hitter's oral 
 promise to pay the check, because the Nego- 
 tiable Instruments Act requires acceptance to 
 be in writing; nor is Bank P l)ound to Bank 
 A, the holder, who has cashed tiie check on 
 faith of such promise, on the principle of 
 estoppel, as this principle is inaj)plicable in 
 tlie face of positive statutory nx|uiremcnt of 
 written acceptance. Bank .\, however, would 
 liave a right of recoverv against the drawer of 
 the check. Vol. 7, p." 165, Sept., ^'^\■\. 
 
 6. (Okla.) A bank purchased a chock 
 from the payee after receiving a statement 
 over the telephone Ity the drawee that the 
 check was good. Payment wa*; stopped. 
 Opinion: Umler the leading case construing 
 the Negotial)l(> Instruments Law of Colorado, 
 the bank had no recourse upon non-payment 
 against the drawee, as certification over the 
 telephone is invalid, not being in writing. 
 The bank's sole recourse is against the 
 drawer and payee. Vol. 5, p. 104, Aug., 1912.
 
 7] 
 
 DIGEST OK LKdAL OPINIONS 
 
 7. (Tex.) All nccoptaiicc of a check or 
 (Inift l)y ti'k'pliono in Texas is valid, because 
 there is no Nej^otiable Instruments Act, or 
 any otiier statute in force requirinj^ accept- 
 ances to he in writing'. Vol. (i, p. ;'>:{, July, 
 1913. 
 
 Notk: Tlic Negotiable IiiHtnimcntH I.aw re- 
 quiring aceej)tances to l)e in writing was passed 
 in Texas in Marih, 1919. 
 
 Acceptance on note 
 
 8. (Pa.) A re«j;ular form of a negoti- 
 able promissory note, made by A payable to 
 his own order forty-five days after date at 
 the X bank, was indorsed in blank by A. 
 Across the face the following acceptance was 
 written by a third party: "Accepted payable 
 at the X bank, signed B." The question is 
 asked what is the liability of the acceptor. 
 Opinion: Where a third person whites an 
 acceptance across the face of a promissory 
 note, the holder has the option of treating 
 the instrument as either a bill or note and 
 the person so signing can be held liable as 
 acceptor of a bill of exchange. Vol. 10, p. 
 528, Jan., 1918. 
 
 Bank's obligation to pay, not to certify 
 See 24 
 
 9. (Iowa) A check was presented at 
 the drawee bank at a time when there were 
 sufficient funds. The drawee returned it for 
 proper indorsement and inquires if it was 
 under obligation to first certify the check 
 in case of subsequent depletion of the 
 maker's account. Opinion: The certification 
 is optional not obligatory, and the bank 
 would not be liable for refusal to certify, if 
 the check in this case thereafter became "not 
 good." Vol. 2, p. 538, June, 1910. 
 
 10. (Mass.) A customer gave instruc- 
 tions to his bank not to certify any of his 
 checks and the bank desires to know if there 
 is any ruling which makes it compulsory for 
 the bank to certify upon demand if the funds 
 are sufficient. Opinion: The bank is not 
 obliged to certify a check when requested. 
 Its only obligation is to pay. The customer's 
 instruction is sufficient reason for the bank's 
 refusal. Vol. 5, p. 28, July, 1912. 
 
 11. (Pa.) A check made payable to a 
 firm was brought to the bank by the firm's 
 agent with the request that it be certified. 
 The bank doubted the authority of the agent 
 and refused to certify. Opinion: Certifica- 
 tion is a matter of favor on the bank's part 
 and cannot be claimed as a right. Vol. 4, 
 p. 681, May, 1912. 
 
 Certified checks post-dated 
 
 12. (Nev.) A bank certified a post- 
 dated clieck before its date at the request of 
 tlio iiolder. The bank questions its responsi- 
 bility should it refuse another check not 
 post-dated, which would have been good but 
 for the certification of the post-dated check. 
 Opinion: The bank has no right to pay or 
 certify a post-dated check at the request of 
 tlie holder, before its date and .so acts at its 
 peril. Such certification at tiie request of 
 the drawer is also held irregular, although in 
 Idaho, it is held proper, if the funds are 
 sufficient, when the amount becomes im- 
 mediately chargeable to his account and pay- 
 able to the holder irrespective of the date. 
 Vol. 5, p. 750, May, 1913. 
 
 13. (Ark.) A check payable to A was 
 post-dated December 1, 1912, and was certi- 
 fied June 1, 1912, before its date. It was 
 delivered to a trustee in escrow. The trustee 
 in breach of the trust delivered it to A, who 
 negotiated it to a purchaser for value four 
 months after its date. Opinion: It might 
 be held by the courts (1) that the irregular 
 certification put the purchaser on inquiry, 
 or (2) that the check was overdue when 
 negotiated, so as to deprive the purchaser of 
 the status of a bona fine holder. If such 
 were held, the check in the hands of the 
 purchaser would be subject to the same de- 
 fenses as if held by the payee. Vol. 6, p. 210, 
 Sept., 1913. 
 
 14. (Okla). A gave B a check post- 
 dated. B wTote to the bank on which it was 
 drawn, asking that payment be guaranteed. 
 The cashier sent B a written guaranty that 
 the check wiU be paid when due. Opinion : 
 The cashier has no authority to certify a post- 
 dated check before the due date and a holder 
 taking with notice, cannot recover thereon 
 from the bank. In this case B could not 
 hold the bank upon its cashier's letter. Vol. 
 8, p. 322, Oct., 1915. See 180. 
 
 Certification equivalent to acceptance 
 
 15. (N. H.) The Negotiable Instru- 
 ments Law of New Hampshire requires that 
 "an acceptance must be in writing" and 
 further provides that "certification is equiva- 
 lent to an acceptance." Vol. 4, p. 375, Dec, 
 1911. 
 
 Certifying bank's liability to fraudulent 
 holder 
 
 16. (Conn.) According to a New Jer- 
 sey decision, a certifying bank can refuse
 
 ACCEPTANCE AXD CERTIFICATION 
 
 24 
 
 payment to a fraudulent holder where a 
 check has been certified for the drawer, but 
 cannot so refuse where the certification is 
 for the holder. If this decision is sound law, 
 there might be a desirability for separate 
 certification stamps to indicate for whom the 
 check was certified. An Ohio decision ignores 
 this distinction and holds that a bank must 
 pay fraudulent holder whether the check is 
 certified for the drawer or for the holder. 
 Vol. 5, p. 740, May, 1913. 
 
 Drawer's liability on accepted draft 
 
 17. (Tex.) A draft was drawn by Smith 
 and Company on Jones & Company at sixty 
 days' sight and accepted by Jones & Com- 
 pany. Opinion: The effect of the acceptance 
 is not to discharge the drawer but to con- 
 stitute the acceptor the principal debtor. 
 In Texas, the liability of the drawer of an 
 accepted draft is fixed by due protest and 
 notice, or without protest, by suit against 
 the acceptor as provided for by statute. 
 Vol. 8, p. 326, Oct., 1915. 
 
 Certification of forged checks 
 See 21, 47 
 
 18. (111.) A bank certified checks bear- 
 ing forgery of the payee's indorsement. The 
 checks were purchased by another bank which 
 received payment therefor. Opinion: The 
 certifying bank does not warrant the gen- 
 uineness of the pa5'ee's indorsement and is 
 not responsible to the purchaser. If money 
 is paid by the certifying bank thereon, it 
 may be recovered. Vol. 5, p. 590, March, 
 1913. 
 
 19. (Kan.) A forged check was given 
 in payment of a diamond ring. Before ac- 
 cepting the check, the seller required a 
 responsible indorser, and the latter before 
 indorsing the check telephoned the bank 
 which promised to pay the check. The bank 
 did not pay the forged check. Opinion: 
 The bank's promise to pay was not binding 
 where the check was a forgery, as its promise 
 related to a valid check; even in case of a 
 valid check, the bank would not be bound 
 because its promise was not in writing. Vol. 
 2, p. 153, Oct., 1909. 
 
 20. (Pa.) A bank certified its custom- 
 er's check, wliich remained outstanding and 
 which was claimed by the drawer to be forged. 
 The bank doubted the fact of forgery and re- 
 fused to reimburse its customer's account. 
 Opinion: If the check remains outstanding 
 the bank in a suit by the customer would be 
 
 held liable for the amount of the deposit, 
 for his positive testimony of the forgery 
 would probably outweigh the presumption of 
 genuineness arising from the fact of certifi- 
 cation. Vol. 6, p. 576, Feb., 1914. 
 
 Certification guarantees signature and 
 sufficiency of funds 
 
 21. (N. J.) A bank certified a check 
 payable to a specified person for a stranger 
 who was not entitled 'to tivic instrument. 
 The holder negotiated the check under a 
 forged indorsement to an innocent purchaser 
 for value. Opinion: The certifying bank 
 binds itself that there are sufficient funds to 
 pay the check and guarantees the genuine- 
 ness of the drawer's signature. The bank is 
 not responsible to the innocent purchaser 
 because (1) it does not guarantee the gen- 
 uineness of the payee's indorsement, and (2) 
 it is not negligent in certifying a check for 
 an unidentified person. Vol. 9, p. 582, Jan., 
 1917. 
 
 Holder in due course 
 
 22. (Okla.) A check to drawer's order 
 was certified for the drawer, who indorsed it 
 to B. B cashed the item at the D bank. The 
 drawer upon learning that B was guilty of 
 fraud, stopped pa}'ment, and the certifying 
 bank refused to pay the D bank. Opinion: 
 D bank paid value to B for the certified check 
 without notice of the fraud and as a holder 
 in due course can recover from the certify- 
 ing bank. Had B presented the check to 
 the drawee some (but not all) authorities 
 hold tluit the certifying bank could refuse 
 payment and plead in defense the fraud upon 
 its depositor. Vol. 6, p. 820, June, 1914. 
 See 21, 55. 
 
 Indorsement must be properly made 
 See 42, 380 
 
 23. (Cal.) A check for $5,000 wa^^ 
 presented at the drawee bank and payment 
 was refused because tlie check was not in- 
 dorsed. The presenting bank then indorsed 
 the payee's name for the payee and again 
 presented the thcck which was again refused. 
 The holder demanded tliat the bank certify 
 the check. Opinion: The drawee bank was 
 under no obligation to the holder to certify 
 the check. Its only obligation was to pay 
 when dulv presented. Vol. 5, p. 311, Nov., 
 1912. 
 
 24. (N. Y.) A bank although in funds 
 refused payment of a check because it lacked
 
 25 
 
 DIGEST OF LEGAL OPINIONS 
 
 tlic payee's indorsement. Later, when the 
 check properly indorsed was presented, there 
 were no funds to meet it. The holder claimed 
 that drawee was liable for failure to certify 
 the check in Ihe first instance. Opinion: 
 The hank was not obliged to certify, but only 
 to pay. Banks frcfiuently certify such checks 
 "n^ood wlicn jiroperly indorsed," but do so 
 })urelv out of accommodation. Vol. 2, p. 
 188, Nov., 1909. 
 
 25. (Pa.) A bank received through the 
 mail a check drawn on one of its customers, 
 but whicli was improperly indorsed. The 
 bank returned the check for correction and in 
 the meantime the customer reduced his ac- 
 count so that check was not good. Opinion: 
 The drawee bank is not liable to the holder 
 for failure to certify the check before return- 
 ing it for proper indorsement. Many banks 
 do certify "good when properly indorsed" 
 but the bank is under no obligation to certify 
 a check. Vol. 7, p. 165, Sept., 1914. 
 
 Immediately charging customer's account 
 
 26. (D. C.) A bank certified a check 
 payable to a distant firm at the request of 
 the holder who was its traveling salesman. Of 
 this fact the depositor was ignorant. The 
 depositor believing that the check could not 
 be presented for several days, drew a second 
 check, which overdrew^ the account because 
 of the certification. He threatened suit for 
 damages because of the bank's refusal to pay. 
 Opinion: The bank had the right to certify 
 the first check when presented by the holder 
 and immediatelv charge same to the custom- 
 er's account. Vol. 5, p. 170, Sept., 1912. 
 See 55. 
 
 Language expressing certification 
 
 construed 
 
 See 4, 35, 36 
 
 27. (Cal.) A bank in which A. Brown 
 is a depositor sent the following telegram, 
 "Check of A. Brown for five hundred dollars 
 now good." Opinion: This telegram would 
 not constitute a sufficient acceptance to bind 
 the bank. It is not an absolute promise to 
 pay, and there is an implication that the 
 bank would not answer for B^o^^^l's check 
 aft^r sending the wire. Vol. 9, p. 147, Aug., 
 1916. 
 
 28. (Ind.) The drawee of a check in 
 answer to an inquiry by the holder replied 
 over the telephone simply that the check was 
 good. Notwithstanding a subsequent stop 
 payment order, the check w^is paid. Opinion : 
 
 Jn Indiana, where the Negotiable Instru- 
 ments Law has not been enacted, oral accept- 
 ances are valid. But it is doubtful if the 
 mere oral answer that a check is good, so 
 clearly indicates an- absolute promise to pay 
 as to be binding as an acceptance. Vol. 3, 
 p. 675, May, 1911. 
 
 Note: Tlie Ncf^otiahle Instruments Law wliich 
 requires acci'ptaiieeH to he in writing wae passed 
 in Indiana in April, 1913. 
 
 29. (Mo.) A bank received a wire: 
 "Will you pay check signed A, $335?" and 
 replied by wire, "A's check good for amount." 
 Opinion: The reply will be held an accept- 
 ance binding the bank to })ay check to a bona 
 fide liolder who has purchased same on faith 
 thereof. Vol. 6, p. 33, July, 1913. 
 
 30. (N. M.) A check may be accepted 
 by telegram which is a sufficient compliance 
 with the statutory requirement that accept- 
 ance must be in writing, but to be binding 
 the telegram must clearly import an absolute 
 promise to pay. Where a bank wired, "Will 
 you pay A's check on you $100 ?" and the 
 drawee wired reply, "A's check on us good 
 for $100." Opinion: That the reply wire 
 sufficiently imports an absolute promise to 
 pay and is binding as an acceptance. Vol. 
 10, p. 527, Jan., 1918. 
 
 31. (N. Y.) In reply to a telegram ask- 
 ing "Is John Smith good on your books for 
 $50?" A bank answered by wire and con- 
 firmed by letter as follows : "John Smith 
 good on our books for $50 today." When 
 the check reached the bank it was refused 
 because the funds had been withdrawn. 
 Opinion: The bank's wire confirmed by letter 
 was not binding on the bank as an acceptance. 
 It was not a promise but merely a statement 
 of fact as to the condition of the customer's 
 account on a given dav. Vol. 4. p. 680, Mav, 
 1912. 
 
 32. (Okla.) A bank before advancing 
 value in reliance upon a telegram concern- 
 ing some particular check should see that the 
 answer by wire contains or imports an ab- 
 solute and unequivocal promise to pay. For 
 the wording of telegrams illustrating this 
 point, see Vol. 3, p. 338, Dec, 1910. 
 
 33. (Okla.) A drew two checks of 
 $303.40 and $75 respectively and had his 
 bank wire the purchasing bank as follows: 
 "We will honor Mr. A's draft for $400 this 
 attached." Later A stopped payment and A's 
 bank refused to pay the amount claiming that 
 its acceptance was of a single draft of $400 
 and did not accept the particular checks of
 
 ACCEPTANCE AXD CERTIFICATIOX 
 
 41 
 
 amount less than $400. Opinion: The drawee 
 is not bound to honor the two checks, as an 
 agreement to pay a single draft of $400 would 
 not bind the bank to pay two drafts of a 
 lesser amount. Vol. 1, p. 367, April, 1909. 
 
 34. (Tex.) Bank A phoned Bank B 
 saying that C wants to draw on Bank B and 
 is informed that C has no credit with Bank 
 B. Thereupon, Bank A reads a letter from 
 C stating that he will be at Bank B's place 
 before the draft reaches and will give security 
 for the draft. Bank B replied, "let him draw 
 draft then." Opinion: Although an oral 
 acceptance is binding on the drawee in Texas, 
 Bank B's promise should be construed as a 
 conditional promise to pay after C docs what 
 he says he Avill do, and wliere C lias not per- 
 formed the condition, Bank B will not l)e 
 liable. Vol. 4, p. 490, Feb., 1912. 
 
 Note: The Negotiable Instruments Law re- 
 quiring acceptances to be in writing was passed 
 in Texas in March, 1919. 
 
 Letters "O. K." as certification 
 
 35. (Ark.) Opinion: The letters "0. K." 
 placed on check with signature of certifying 
 oflficer constitute a certification equally as 
 if "good"' were written, and if placed upon 
 an overdraft, contrary to provisions of the 
 National Bank Act, would subject officer to 
 criminal penalty. Vol. G, p. 269, Oct., 1913. 
 
 36. (Cal.j The letters "0. K." were 
 placed on a check by the Vice-President of 
 the drawee bank over his signature, there be- 
 ing no funds on deposit at the time to meet 
 the check. Tlie understanding was that the 
 maker of the check would deposit sufficient 
 funds. Payment was refused. Opinion: 
 The "0. K." of the Vice-President would 
 constitute a certification provided the officer 
 had power or authority to certify. Where tlio 
 check was certified witliout funds, the bank 
 is liable to the bona fide payee for value. 
 Vol. 3, p. 587, April, 1911. 
 
 Limitation as to time 
 
 37. (N. Y.) A l)ank ccrtiluation stamp 
 bears the clause "good if presented within six 
 months." Upon the supposition tliat the 
 bank after the expiration of tlie six months 
 repaid the funds to its depositor wlio claimed 
 he had lost the certified check, and later the 
 check was presented l)y a holder in due course, 
 the bank inquires, first, as to the legal effect 
 of such a clause and, second, would the inser- 
 tion of the clause afford it better protection 
 than if it was omitted. Opinion: In the ab- 
 
 sence of judicial interpretation, the contract 
 would probably be construed not as relieving 
 the bank entirely from its promise to pay 
 after six months, but as permitting the bank, 
 if the check is afterwards presented, to plead 
 any equities which it might have in defense 
 of 'payment. Vol. 11, p. 484, March, 1919. 
 
 38. (Pa.) A bank uses a certification stamp 
 which reads ''good if presented within five 
 days" with a place and date of certification. 
 It has adopted this form as protection against 
 a possible form of fraud wherein the deposi- 
 tor after issuing his check to a confederate 
 who procures its certification, claims forgery 
 and obtains the amount from the bank, after 
 which the check is negotiated to a bona fide 
 holder. The bank asks whether such condi- 
 ti{»nal form of certification is valid and 
 whether it could refuse payment if the check 
 was presented after five days. Opinion: 
 Such form of certification is valid and would 
 seem to have utility in affording the desired 
 protection. In a case where the bank cred- 
 ited the money to the depositor after the ex- 
 ]»iration of the period of certitication, it would 
 be relieved from liability and whatever 
 recourse the bona fide holder would have 
 would be solely against the drawer. Vol. G, 
 p. 576, Feb., 1915. 
 
 Outstanding certified checks 
 See 340 
 
 39. (Pa.) A bank certified a check pay- 
 able to a corporation at the request of its cus- 
 tomer. The check has been out>?tanding five 
 years and never presented. Opinion: In 
 Pennsylvania, the statute of limitations begins 
 to run against the holder from the date of the 
 bank's refusal to j>ay. The bank remains 
 liable to pay the check until the statute comes 
 to its relief. Vol. 5, p. 449, Jan., 1913. 
 
 40. (Pa.) The provision of the Nego- 
 tiable Instruments Law that, where an instru- 
 ment is jiayable on demand, jiresontation 
 must be made within a reasonable time after 
 its issue, has reference only to charging 
 ])arties contingently liable. A \n\uk remai.is 
 liable on an outstanding certified check until 
 the statute of limitations comes to its relief, 
 and such statute does not begin to run until 
 pavment of the check has been demanded and 
 refused. Vol. 5, p. 449, Jan., 1913. 
 
 41. (Pa.) A bank certified the check of 
 its dejKisitor in favor of an attorney who 
 acted as bondsman for the depositor. The 
 check was lost and lias remained outstanding 
 for ten years, and at the same time the do-
 
 42 
 
 DICIEST OF LEGAL OPINIONS 
 
 ])osit is not released. Opinion: The certified 
 (;lu'(;k is not outlawed iu PLMinsylvania until 
 six years after payment has l)('en demanded 
 and the hank heforc payinj,' the amount of 
 the deposit represented hy the lost certified 
 check is entitled to satisfactory indemnity, or 
 conclusive proof of its destruction. Vol. 7, 
 p. 4i)0, Jan., 11)15. 
 
 42. (Mont.) A check to the drawer's 
 order was certified for the drawer. The drawer 
 delivered the check without indorsement to a 
 third person at an auction sale hefore he be- 
 gan bitlding. Through some misunderstand- 
 ing the dealings fell through. On present- 
 ment of the check by the holder, payment was 
 refused by the drawee because it lacked the 
 payee's indorsement. The check remains out- 
 standing and the drawer wants the use of 
 his money. Opinion: The drawee bank is 
 not liable to the holder of the check, as one of 
 the conditions of certification upon which the 
 bank's obligations to pay depends, is that the 
 check shall be indorsed by the drawer, who is 
 also payee. To release his money, the drawer 
 may bring replevin to recover the check, or he 
 may give the bank satisfactory indemnity 
 against the possibility that the check may 
 thereafter be presented properly indorsed. 
 Vol. 7, p. 165, Sept., 1914. 
 
 Rule of twenty-four hours for acceptance 
 
 43. (Conn.) Opinion: The section of 
 Negotiable Instruments Law allowing drawee 
 twenty-four hours after presentment in which 
 to decide whether or not he will accept, does 
 not apply to sight drafts which, under the 
 law, are payable on demand, and collect- 
 ing bank is not obliged to hold twenty-four 
 hours for convenience of drawee. Possible 
 doubt created bv law can be cured bv amend- 
 ment. Vol. 3, p. 82, Aug., 1910. 
 
 44. (Kan.) The rule allowing the drawee 
 twenty-four hours to decide whether to accept 
 is not applicable to checks or demand drafts, 
 but only to drafts legally presentable for ac- 
 ceptance. Vol. 6, p. 432, Dec, 1913. 
 
 45. (Miss.) The drawee of a bill of 
 exchange is entitled to twenty-four hours 
 after presentment in which to decide whether 
 he will accept, and is entitled to have the bill 
 left with him for that period ; but in the ab- 
 sence of agreement, drawee is not entitled to 
 documents of title att^ached to the draft, prior 
 to acceptiince, and a collecting agent, unless 
 expressly instructed, should withhold the at- 
 tached documents upon leaving the draft with 
 the drawee for acceptance. Vol. 9, p. 819, 
 April, 1917. 
 
 46. (Tex.) The rule allowing a drawee 
 twenty-four hours to determine whether or 
 not he will accept does not apply to checks 
 or drafts payable on demand, but only to 
 drafts legally presentable to the <lrawee for 
 accejjtance. Checks and demand drafts there- 
 fore should be immediately protested if pay- 
 ment is refused. In Texas a sight draft 
 carries grace and is presentable for accept- 
 ance. Vol. 4, p. 557, March, 1912. 
 
 Note: The Negotiable Instrumenta Law, which 
 abolislies grace, was enacted in Texas in March, 
 1!)19, and thereunder, an instrument drawn pay- 
 able nt sight is payable on demand. 
 
 Certification of raised check 
 
 47. (N. Y.) In a decision in New York 
 it was held that a bank certifying a check 
 which had been raised, was entitled to 
 recover the amount from a bank which had 
 cashed the certified check for a forger and 
 received payment from the certifying bank. 
 The court held the latter bank was entitled to 
 recover under the general rule that money 
 paid under mistake of fact is recoverable; 
 that certification does no more than afl&rm 
 the genuineness of the signature of the drawer 
 and that he has funds to meet it, but does not 
 warrant the genuineness of the body of the 
 check; and that the certifying bank was not 
 guilty of negligence in not having detected 
 the alteration, by w^hich it was claimed the 
 bank advancing value on the check was mis- 
 led. A New York banker has questioned the 
 soundness of this decision. Opinion: It seems 
 unjust that an innocent purchaser of a check 
 certified for one thousand dollars should have 
 to repay nine hundred dollars thereof where 
 the check was originally for one hundred 
 dollars, but it w'ould be equally, if not more 
 unjust, if the certifying bank had to suffer. 
 The bank has no means of knowledge in its 
 possession to detect the alteration, and to hold 
 it liable on every certified raised check would 
 impose a serious burden. Vol. 8, p. 1013, Mav, 
 1916. 
 
 Revocation of mistaken certification of 
 stopped check 
 
 48. (Conn.) On Jan. 2, 1919, payment 
 was stopped on a certain check of a depositor 
 of a bank. Several weeks later it was pre- 
 sented by an agent of a reputable manufac- 
 turing company who requested that it be cer- 
 tified. The agent stated that he was not 
 going to negotiate the check until after a 
 settlement of a dispute regarding certain 
 goods. The bank through a mistake certified 
 the check and upon discovery of the error 
 the next day, wired the company not to use 
 
 6
 
 ACCEPTANCE AND CERTIFICATION 
 
 [57 
 
 the check. The company failed to reply and 
 the bank now seeks redress. Opinion: Where 
 a hank througli mistake certifies a check upon 
 which payment has previously been stopped 
 and the check remains in the hands oi the 
 payee at the time he receives notice of revo- 
 cation of the certification and no change of 
 circumstances nor harm nor injury to the 
 payee has resulted, the bank is not lial)le to 
 the payee upon its certification. If the 
 payee thereafter wrongfully negotiates the 
 che&k so as to make the bank liable there- 
 on to an innocent purchaser for value, the 
 bank would have recourse upon the payee for 
 money received to his use. Vol. 11, p. 605, 
 May, 1919. 
 
 Stamp including amount certified not 
 advantageous 
 
 49. (Pa.) The certification stamp used 
 by a bank is as follows : 
 
 "Good when properly indorsed 
 
 $1,500 and 00 cents 
 
 Jan. 14, 1918 
 
 Do not destroy this check 
 
 Teller" 
 
 The wisdom of including the amount in the 
 stamp is questioned. Opinion: Certification 
 of check without re-stating the amount in the 
 certification is. of course, valid and in the 
 past has been the common practice. A bank 
 is not bound to know more than its drawer's 
 signature and the sufficiency of his funds; it 
 is not bound to know correctness of the 
 amount of a check and, in a case where it cer- 
 tifies a check raised from $15 to $1,500, it 
 would probably be an unwise practice to in- 
 clude such amount in its certification stamp 
 for it might ])C estopped from questioning the 
 amount as against a holder in due course, 
 whereas upon an ordinary certification it 
 would not be liable for the raised amount. 
 A'ol. 10, p. 59,1. Feb., 1918. 
 
 Stopping payment of certified checks 
 
 50. (Ala.) Drawee bank promising by 
 wire to pay customer's check is liable to holder 
 and drawer cannot thereafter stop payment, 
 but similar promise over telephone is not 
 I)in(ling, because acceptance must be in wri- 
 ting and drawer's riglit to stop payment con- 
 tinues. Vol. 7, p. 304, Nov., 1914. See 55, 
 1237 et seg. 
 
 Certification by telegraph 
 See 30, 31 
 
 51. (Kan.) The drawee of a bill tele- 
 phones to a telegraph agent to wire accept- 
 
 ance. Opinion: The acceptance is valid and 
 binding as being an acceptance in writing by 
 the drawee by the hand of his agent. Vol. 7, 
 p. 491, Jan., 1915. 
 
 52. (Okla.) A bank cashing a check 
 upon another bank on faith of a telegram by 
 the drawee that it will pay tiie clieck can hold 
 the latter as an acceptor. Vol. 1, j). 140, 
 Oct., 1908. 
 
 53. (Okla.) In reply to a request to pay 
 a certain check, the drawee bank telegraphed 
 "Signature being genuine, will pay John 
 Smith's check for two hundred dollars." 
 Opinion: The drawee bank would be liable 
 as an acceptor under the Negotiable Instru- 
 ments Law to one, who on faith of the tele- 
 graphic promise, purchased the check for 
 value. Vol. 3, p. 338, Dec, 1910. 
 
 54. (Tex.) After the drawee bank has 
 wired the holder that it will pay a specified 
 check, it is too late for the drawer to stop 
 payment. The telegraphic promise by the 
 drawee to pay binds it as an acceptor of the 
 check. But where the drawee promises to 
 pay the check over the telephone, it is not 
 bound, the acceptance not being in writing, 
 except in Texas where an oral promise to pav 
 will bind the bank. Vol. 9, p. 903, Mav, 
 1917. 
 
 Note: The Negotiable Instruments Law requir- 
 ing acceptances to be in writing was passed in 
 Texas in March, l'J19. 
 
 55. (Tex.) A bank received a wire, 
 "Will you pay John Doe's chock for one hun- 
 dred dollars?*' and replied by wire "Yes, we 
 will pay John Doe's check for one hundred 
 dollars." Payment of the check was stopped. 
 Opinion: The drawee bank was bound to pay 
 the amount of the check to one who purehased 
 it on faith of the telegra])hic promise. The 
 bank accejiting the check by wire luid tlie 
 right t(j cliarge the amount to the drawer's 
 account the same as in the case of a check, 
 certified over tiie counter, and the drawer 
 cannot thoreaft^'r stop pavmont. Vol. 5, 
 p. 175, Sept., 191 '3. 
 
 Certification by telephone 
 Si'e 2, T), 0, 7. 10, 2.S 
 
 56. (Ala.) A bank answered an in- 
 quiry over the telephone that certain specified 
 checks drawn on it were good, but before pre- 
 sentment the drawer stopped payment. Opin- 
 ion: The bank was not liable to the holder of 
 the checks. Vol. 5, p. 374, Dec, 1912. 
 
 57. (Conn.) The drawee of a check an- 
 swering the holder's inquiry concerning John
 
 58 
 
 i)I(;KST OF I.KCAL oriNiox.s 
 
 Doc's dicck for $170 replied over the tele- 
 phone "Ves, John Doe is <,'oo(l for $170." Be- 
 fore the check is presented, the maker stops 
 })ayinent. Oiiinion: The certification over 
 tiic tcleplionc is not valid under tlie Negoti- 
 ahle Instruments Law which requires an ac- 
 ceptance to be in writing. Vol. 3, p. 277, 
 Nov., 1!)10. 
 
 58. (Mo.) A ])ank certified its custom- 
 er's check over the telephone and subsequent- 
 ly the account was att^ached by a creditor of 
 the customer, who claimed that the certifica- 
 tion was invalid. Opinion: The certification 
 not being in writing, was not legal and bind- 
 ing under the Negotiable Instruments Law. 
 Vol. 3, p. 102, Jan., 191L 
 
 59. (N. J.) A promise over the tele- 
 phone to pay a check is not binding as an ac- 
 ceptance, not being in writing. Notwith- 
 standing a verbal promise over the telephone 
 to pay, the bank is bound to pay another 
 check, first presented, which would reduce the 
 balance below the amount necessary to pay 
 the first stated check. Vol. 3, p. 587, April, 
 1911. 
 
 60. (Okla.) A bank has been in the 
 habit of accepting checks of its customers 
 over the telephone. It immediately charges 
 the customer's account with the item and 
 credits the "certified checks'' account, treating 
 it as though it had been certified over the 
 counter. Opinion: A promise to pay a check 
 over the tcleplione not being in writing is 
 not valid nor binding as an acceptance. Vol. 
 4, p. 375, Dec, 1911. 
 
 61. (Ohio.) The certification of a check 
 by telephone is not valid under the Negoti- 
 able Instruments Law of Ohio, because not 
 in writing. Vol. 2, p. 231, Dec, 1909. 
 
 62. (Pa.) A drawee bank receiving an 
 incjuiry over the telephone whether the check 
 of Mr. A is good and will be paid re- 
 plies in the affirmative, and afterwards re- 
 fuses to pay the check because payment has 
 been stopped. Opinion: Oral promise over 
 telephone or otherwise by a drawee of check 
 to pay same not binding because acceptance 
 must be in writing — Nor can bank in absence 
 of fraud be held liable to holder wdio has 
 cashed check on faith of promise on equitable 
 principle of estoppel, as this principle inap- 
 plicable in face of positive statutor}^ require- 
 ment of written acceptance. (The courts of 
 
 I'cnnsylvania would probablv follow this 
 rule.) Vol. n, p. 023, Marcii, 1914. 
 
 63. (Tenn.) A gave B his check. B 
 took it to a hank in another town which asked 
 the drawee over the telephone '"Is clieck of A 
 good?" The drawee replied that check was 
 good if signature was genuine. Before pre- 
 sentment A stopped payment. The purchasing 
 bank threatens suit unless check and protest 
 fees are paid. Opinion: An oral promise 
 over the telephone by the drawee to pay 
 a check is not binding under the Negotiable 
 Instruments Law because the acceptance must 
 be in writing. Vol. 7, p. 583, Feb., 1915. 
 
 64. (Tex.) A gave B his check for $500 
 u])on wliich was indorsed by B the condition 
 that the check was given "when contract to 
 be drawn is satisfactory to both parties." 
 B cashed the check at his bank, but only after 
 the bank received the oral promise of the 
 drawee over the telephone. Failing to agree 
 upon a satisfactory contract, A stopped pay- 
 ment on the check. The facts show that B's 
 bank did not give the drawee the information 
 on back of the check. Is the drawee bound 
 by its oral promise? Opinion: In Texas an 
 oral promise to pay a check will bind the bank 
 but the check must conform to the terms of 
 the promise, and where a bank promises to 
 pay a check for $500 and the check as pre- 
 sented is coupled with a condition making it 
 payable only if a future drawn contract is 
 satisfactory, the check does not conform to 
 the promise and the bank is not bound. Vol. 
 10, p. 42, July, 1917. 
 
 Note: Under the Negotiable Instruments Law 
 passed in Texas, in March, 1019, an acceptance 
 must be written. 
 
 65. (W. Va.) A bought an ice plant 
 from B for $900, but discovered that certain 
 parts of the machinery amounting in value to 
 $80 were missing. A delivered to B two 
 checks in pavmcnt. one for $820 and another 
 for $80. In the $80 check, he stated that 
 the sum was for the parts of the machinery 
 he did not get. The bank at the request of 
 B promised over the telephone to pay the 
 checks. Before presentment A notified the 
 bank not to pay the $80 check. Opinion: 
 The bank is not legally bound to pay the 
 check because a telephone promise is not bind- 
 ing as an acceptance, and where payment is 
 subsequentlv stopped the bank should not pav. 
 A^ol. l,p. 267, Jan., 1909.
 
 [74 
 
 ACCOMMODATION INDORSERS 
 
 Accommodation and commercial paper 
 distinguished 
 
 66. (Va.) A firm sold a certain amount 
 of its furniture to P for the purpose of join- 
 ing with him in the formation of a new part- 
 nership, and for which they received P's 
 notes secured by a deed of trust on real estate. 
 The firm indorsed the notes and discounted 
 them with a bank. The bank examiner 
 claimed that the firm signed as accommoda- 
 tion indorsers, and that the notes were accom- 
 modation paper and were subject to the stat- 
 utory restrictions on money borrowed by a 
 single firm. Opinion: The notes should be 
 considered commercial or business paper, 
 within the meaning of the Virginia statute 
 excepting such paper from restrictions on 
 money borrowed, and not speculative or ac- 
 commodation paper. Vol. 4, p. 429, Jan., 
 1912. 
 
 Indorsement after delivery 
 
 See 985 
 
 67. (Ala.) An accommodation indorser 
 signing a note after delivery, and after the 
 consideration has passed between the parties, 
 is not liable, unless there is a new considera- 
 tion. But no new consideration is required 
 where the note is indorsed pursuant to an 
 agreement made prior to delivery. Vol. 7, 
 p. 36, July, 1914. 
 
 68. (Kan.) A bank makes a loan to A 
 for $500 upon his note, witli the understand- 
 ing and agreement that B would sign later as 
 accommodation indorser. B afterwards comes 
 to the bank and signs the note. Opinion: 
 One who signs a note as accommodation in- 
 dorser after its delivery and the passing of 
 consideration is not liable, without a new 
 consideration, unless such indorsement is 
 made pursuant to an agreement in advance 
 of delivery. In this case B is liable if iiis 
 subsequent indorsement was in pursuance of 
 the prior agreement. Vol. 9, p. 48, July, 
 1916. 
 
 69. (N, Y.) A bank discounted a tliree 
 montlis' note of a corporation, indorsed indi- 
 vidually by two oflicers of the corporation. 
 After the expiration of one month, the bank, 
 wishing further protection, re(iuosted tlie sig- 
 nature of an additional indorser. Opinion: 
 The additional indorser by indorsing for ac- 
 commodation could not be held liable, as there 
 would be no consideration to support his in- 
 dorsement. Vol. 5, p. 751, May, 191:5 . 
 
 Liability of accommodation indorser 
 
 70. (Iowa.) Where tiie payee presents 
 a check, which has been raised by him, direct- 
 ly to the drawee, and the drawee pays the 
 same on the strength of an accommodation 
 indorsement, the liability of the accommoda- 
 tion indorser to the drawee is somewhat 
 doubtful under present law, although in a re- 
 cent New York case the accommodation in- 
 dorser was held liable to the drawee. In 
 case such check is cashetl liy another bank for 
 the payee, the acconunodation indorser would 
 be liable to the purchasing bank and the latter 
 to the drawee. Vol. 7, p. SG, July, 1914. 
 
 71. (N. Y.) Under the Negotiable In- 
 struments Act an accommodation indorser is 
 liable on a note to a holder in due course, not- 
 withstanding such holder at the time of tak- 
 ing the instrument knew him to be only an 
 accommodation partv. Vol. 3, p. 519, March, 
 1911. 
 
 72. (Tenn.) A l)ank cashed a check for 
 the indorser by telephone request of the 
 drawee. Presentment was duly made and be- 
 fore payment the drawee failed. Indorser 
 claimed freedom from liability because check 
 was cashed for the benefit of the drawee and 
 not for his l)enefit. Opinion: Indorser was 
 liable on his indorsement irrespective of 
 whether he was accommodated. Vol. 7, ]). 
 106, Aug., 1914. 
 
 Liability as between themselves 
 
 73. (N. Y.) B and C indorse a note in 
 the order named for the accommodation of A, 
 and C is compelled to pay the note. C seeks 
 to hold B liable for the full amount of the 
 note. Opinion: C can hold B liable for the 
 full amount unless there has been some speci- 
 fic agreement between the accommodation in- 
 dorsers that they shall only be ratably liable. 
 The NegotiaI)le Instruments Act of New 
 York provides ''As respects one another, in- 
 dorscrs are liable prima facio in the order in 
 which they indorse, but evidence is admissible 
 to show that as between or among themselves 
 tliev have agreed otherwise." Vol. 10, p. 851, 
 June, 19is'. 
 
 74. (Pa.) A note of a corporation hav- 
 ing three imlorsers was protested for non- 
 j)ayment in 1909, and since that time inter- 
 est thereon has been paid by the corporation 
 but nothing has been paid thereon by the in- 
 dorsers except that one of the indorsers made 
 partial ]iayments in reduction of the prin- 
 cipal, the last of which was in January, 1913. 
 
 9
 
 75 
 
 DIGEST OF LEGAL OPINIONS 
 
 What are tlic liabilities of the parties? Opin- 
 ion: The ri^lit of action of the holder of the 
 note accrued against all parties when the note 
 was protested in January, 1D09, and due no- 
 tice was given the indorsers. The note is 
 barred by the Statute of Limitations (six 
 years in Pennsylvania) as to all indorsers and 
 the sole remaining liability is that of the cor- 
 poration maker. Interest paid by the cor- 
 poration maker and not by the indorsers op- 
 erates to suspend the running of the statute 
 as to it, but partial payment made by one of 
 several joint debtors without the acquies- 
 cence, consent or ratification of the other 
 joint debtors will not operate to suspend 'the 
 running of the statute as to him. Any ac- 
 tion for contribution which the indorser who 
 made partial payment may have had against 
 the company indorsers has likewise been 
 barred by the statute. Vol. 11, p. 491, 
 March, 1IU9. 
 
 75. (Va.) A made a negotiable note 
 payable to the order of B, bearing three in- 
 dorsements of B, C and D in the order 
 named, who indorsed for accommodation. D 
 paid the note and demanded full payment 
 from the previous indorsers; B and C will 
 only contribute one-third. Opinion: The ac- 
 commodation indorsers are liable for the full 
 amount in the order in which they indorse 
 unless as between or among themselves they 
 have acrreed otherwise. Vol. 2, p. 190, Nov., 
 1909. ^ 
 
 Liability on corporation note 
 
 76. (Mich.) A corporation discounted 
 its note payable at a bank. The note was in- 
 dorsed for accommodation by several of the 
 directors of the company and signed "X Com- 
 pany, by C. II. Jones." The company failed 
 before maturity. Opinion: The accommoda- 
 tion indorsers were liable on the note pro- 
 vided demand and due notice of dishonor 
 were given them. The fact that the indors- 
 ers were directors of the bankrupt company 
 does not dispense with these steps. The pos- 
 session by the bank of the note at maturity 
 constituted sufficient demand. C. H. Jones's 
 signature imports a corporate, not a personal 
 obligation. Vol. 3, p. 520, March, 1911. 
 See 1023, 1024. 
 
 77. (Pa.) A corporation in the hands 
 of a receiver issued its promissory note, in- 
 dorsed for accommodation by several respon- 
 sible persons. The note was issued pursuant 
 to a court order, but the legality of said order 
 was questioned by the bank about to purchase 
 the same. Opinion: The bank should not 
 purchase the note until it has ascertained 
 whether the note is void or illegal. Accom- 
 modation indorsers are liable on a corpora- 
 tion note, although the corporation because of 
 incapacity is not liable, but if the note is void 
 for illegality, this defense is open to the ac- 
 commodation indorsers. Vol. 5, p. 166, 
 Sept., 1912. 
 
 ADVERTISEMENT 
 
 For Advertising for "Savings" Accounts, see 188, 870 
 
 Advertising of capital 
 
 78. (Ark.) A bank with capital of $50,- 
 000 has $30,675 actually paid in, and wishes 
 to advertise that its capital is $50,000. Opin- 
 ion: No statute in Arkansas expressly pro- 
 hibits the bank from so advertising, although 
 a certain statute providing that a false report 
 with intent to deceive as to the condition of 
 a bank is a criminal offense, may have appli- 
 cation. Vol. 4, p. 309, Nov., 1911. 
 
 Advertisement with United States Flag 
 
 79. (Mass.) Until the Massachusetts 
 Act of 1913 prohibiting the misuse of the 
 United States flag is judicially construed, it 
 would be unsafe for banks in that state to im- 
 print such flag upon their statement folders. 
 Vol. 7, p. 169, Sept., 1914. 
 
 80. (Mo.) The placing of a representa- 
 tion of the flag upon a draft or certificate of 
 
 deposit, disconnected from any advertisement, 
 would not violate the Missouri statute against 
 using the flag for advertising purposes. Vol. 
 9, p."982, June, 1917. 
 
 81. (N. Y.) A bank's statement folder 
 showing its condition and used for advertis- 
 ing purposes contains an imprint of the like- 
 ness of the United States flag. Opinion: 
 There is no Federal statute prohibiting such 
 imprint; the extent of Federal legislation on 
 the subject is to prohibit the use of the flag as 
 a trade mark. While the New York statute 
 in regard to the desecration and improper 
 use of the United States and New York State 
 flags expressly provides that it shall not apply 
 to a newspaper, pamphlet or circular on which 
 the flag is printed or painted disconnected 
 from any advertisement, it would be safer to 
 consult the District Attorney of the Coimty 
 before imprinting the flag on the bank's 
 statement folder. Vol. 6, p. 817, June, 1914. 
 
 10
 
 [91 
 
 ALTERED AND RAISED PAPER 
 
 See Forgery, 512-G2U 
 
 Blank form of another bank used 
 
 See 97 
 
 82. (Mass.) In Kansas it has been held 
 not negligent for a bank to pay a check where- 
 in the name of the drawee has been changed 
 in a handwriting other than the drawer's ; but 
 the safer practice is to refuse payment of such 
 a check until the bank receives satisfactory 
 evidence that the alteration has been author- 
 ized. Vol. 6, p. 32, July, 1913. 
 
 83. (N. J.) A check was drawn payable 
 to John Doe only, upon the blank form of 
 another bank, whose name was erased and the 
 drawee bank's name substituted. Opinion: 
 A check to the payee only is not negotiable. 
 The fact that the check was drawn on the 
 blank form of another bank did not render 
 the instrument invalid, but places an addi- 
 tional burden on the drawee bank to safe- 
 guard itself against fraud. Vol. 4, p. 221, 
 Oct., 1911. 
 
 84. (N. J.) It is legal but somewhat un- 
 safe for a bank to pay a check drawn on the 
 check form of another bank, with name sub- 
 stituted as drawee. Vol. 5, p. 176, Sept., 
 1912. 
 
 Check raised after certification 
 
 85. (Cal.) Where a check is certified 
 and afterwards raised and paid by the certi- 
 fying bank at the raised amount, the bank 
 has a right of recovery under the rule that 
 money paid under mistake of fact is recover- 
 able, provided the position of the holder, by 
 reason of receiving such payment, will not be 
 changed for the worse as a result of such 
 mistake. Vol. 7, p. 96, Aug., 1914. 
 
 "Collection" rubber stamped on 
 instrument 
 
 86. (Ore.) It is a general custom of 
 bankers to place a collection stamp on notes 
 and the inquiring bank uses a rnl)her stamp 
 with name of bank and the word "collection," 
 followed with blank space for their collection 
 number, placing same on face of the note in 
 the margin, or any other blank space thereon. 
 A local attorney cautions the bank not to 
 place the collection stamp on any part of the 
 notes received for collection, stating tliat in 
 suit on the note, it might be used by the 
 maker as a defense in refusing payment. 
 Opinion: The word "collection" rubber 
 stamped on the face of an instrument, as de- 
 
 scribed, does not constitute a material altera- 
 tion and does not affect the validity thereof. 
 Vol. 8, p. 252, Sept., 1915. 
 
 Erasure by acid 
 
 87. (Mass.) Where a bank paid its cus- 
 tomer's check, the amount of which was raised 
 after erasure by acid, it is responsible to the 
 customer, the customer not being bound to 
 safeguard his check against every possible al- 
 teration. Vol. 1, p. 31, July, 1908. 
 
 88. (Pa.) A check was dra\\'n on a Bos- 
 ton bank, from which the name of the payee 
 and the amount were washed by acid, and a 
 different payee and an increased amount in- 
 serted. After indorsement by the purj)orted 
 payee, the check was cashed by a customer of 
 a Philadelphia bank, but only after he had 
 deposited the same for collection and had re- 
 ceived advice that it had l)een paid. Opin- 
 ion: Irrespective of the Philadelphia bank's 
 guaranty of indorsement- there is a clear right 
 of recovery by the Boston bank either against 
 the former bank as apparent owner of the 
 check, or if the check was indorsed "for col- 
 lection," against the customer. Vol. 1, p. 33, 
 July, 1908. 
 
 Liability for payment 
 
 See 204, 200 
 
 89. (Me.) Where a bank paid a raised 
 check, and there were no exceptional circum- 
 stances of negligence on the drawer's part, it 
 cannot charge the raised amount to the cus- 
 tomer's account. In the absence of gross or 
 inexcusable neglect, a bank oflicer or minor 
 official is not personally liable for a mistake 
 in paving such check. Vol. 1, p. 333, March, 
 
 90. (Mass.) A drawee bank paid a 
 cheek upon which the drawer's signature was 
 genuine, but the body of the check was forged 
 in a dilTerent handwriting, there being no 
 sign of an alteration. Opinion: If the check 
 was signed in blank, stolen and filled out or 
 was originally unfilled or partly unfilled and 
 afterwards altered by filling the blanks, the 
 payment by the drawee would be chargeable 
 to the customer; but if the check was issued 
 in ordinary and complete form and after- 
 wards altered without authority, the p.ay- 
 ment would not be chargeable. Vol. 7, p. 
 385, Dec, 1914. 
 
 91. (Mo.) A bank which takes from the 
 payee a check raised from $2 to $200, and ra- 
 
 il
 
 92 
 
 DlCiKST OF J.K(JAL Oi'JMuXS 
 
 (civcs the full amount thoroon from dnothcr 
 liaiik, is iTspoiisihU; to tlic latter for the 
 ainouiit, such hitter hank l)eiii^' resi)()iisil)h; 
 to the drawee froiii whom it lias collei'ted the 
 full amount. Vol. 2, p. 11'.), April, lUlO. 
 
 92. (N. Y.) A cheek for $5 was rai.scd 
 to ^'^:){) and the name of payee erased and 
 hearer inserted. It was paid hy a teller in 
 violation of his instructions not to pay a hear- 
 er clieck in excess of $100. Opinion: The 
 hank is responsihle to its customer and the 
 teller is liahle to the hank. Vol. 1, p. 205, 
 Dec, 1!I08. 
 
 93. (S. Dak.) A gave B a clieck supposed 
 to he for the sum of ninetv-nine cents, hut 
 which was cashed by B for ■$'jy.!)9. B made 
 out the check, which A signed but without 
 noticing just how it was filled out. Opinion: 
 If the check was originally drawn for $99.99, 
 A is liable. If the amount was subsequently 
 raised the rule applies that the drawer is not 
 bound so to prepare a check that nobody can 
 successfully t-amper with it, but if he careless- 
 ly executes the check so as to facilitate or in- 
 vite raising of the amount without giving the 
 check a suspicious appearance, the bank may 
 charge the full amount paid to the drawer's 
 account. Vol. 8, p. 803, March, 1916. See 
 341 et seq. 
 
 94. (Tex.) Where a draft to bearer is 
 
 d^a^vn for " twelve dollars," the 
 
 word ''twelve'' being written at the right of 
 the line a space also being left between the 
 dollar mark and the figures "12," and is in- 
 dorsed in that condition and afterwards 
 fraudulently raised to "five hundred and 
 twelve dollars" in words and figures, and ne- 
 gotiated to a bank by the drawer on faith of 
 the indorsement, the authorities conflict as to 
 the right of recourse of the bank upon the in- 
 dorser for the full amount. The generally 
 accepted rule of the law merchant is that 
 where blanks negligently left are filled, the 
 party who has invited the fraud by leaving 
 the blanks should stand the loss, rather than 
 a holder for value. Vol. 1, p. 265, Jan., 1909. 
 
 Material alteration 
 
 See 132!) 
 
 95. (Kan.) A bank held A's note of 
 $1,300 for several years, which indebtedness 
 was renewed from time to time. B, a third 
 person, came into the bank and indorsed the 
 note as surety, at the same time paying $350 
 on the principal. B never received any con- 
 sideration for his indorsement which was 
 made without the knowledge or consent of the 
 
 maker. The maker disclaims liability on the 
 note ix'cause of material altcjration. Opin- 
 ion: The fact that nfU'.r a note is delivered, 
 another person without the knowledge or con- 
 sent of the maker adds his name as surety, 
 does not release the maker from liability on 
 the ground of material alteration. \'ol. 11, 
 p. OTl, June, 1919. 
 
 96. (Mass.) Where the amount of a 
 note is written in the body and also given in 
 figures in the margin, the deduction from 
 such marginal figures of the amount of a par- 
 tial pavment is not a material alteration of 
 the note. Vol. 9, p. 417, Nov., 1916. 
 
 Place of payment altered 
 
 See 1328 
 
 97. (Miss.) A was the holder of a check 
 drawn by B on a bank which returned it to A 
 indorsed "not sufficient funds." Thereupon 
 A changed the name of the drawee to the 
 bank of C, where B also had an account, and 
 obtained the money. Later a subsequent 
 good check, dra^vn by B on the bank of C 
 was presented, and dishonored because of a 
 shortage created by payment of the altered 
 check. Opinion: As to the altered check, the 
 alteration constituted forgery and rendered 
 A criminally liable, and as between B and 
 bank of C, the bank must bear the loss. The 
 alteration by A would also avoid any possible 
 liability on the part of B to A. As to the 
 good check, the bank is answerable in dam- 
 ages should B prove injury to his credit aris- 
 ing out of the bank's failure to honor his 
 check in the hands of a third partv. Vol. 3, 
 p. 82, Aug., 1910. See 82, 83, 84,' 1328. 
 
 98. (N. Y.) A note was altered by draw- 
 ing lines through the place of payment. Opin- 
 ion: The note was materially altered and 
 avoided, except that a holder in due course 
 may enforce it according to its original tenor. 
 In this case the purchaser could not be a 
 holder in due course, when a mere inspection 
 of the note shows the alteration. Vol. 8, 
 p. 1102, June, 1916. 
 
 Raised checks 
 
 99. (Md.) A bank innocently cashing a 
 raised check cannot hold the drawer for 
 raised amoimt but only for the amount for 
 which he drew check. Vol. 3, p. 677, Mav, 
 1911. See 344. 
 
 100. , (Okla.) A bank through inadver- 
 tence cashed a check raised from $8.75 to $80, 
 notwithstanding the fact that the check bore 
 evidence of alteration on its face, by reason 
 of the words stamped thereon "not over ten 
 
 12 
 
 ^'
 
 ALTERED AXD RAISED PAPER 
 
 108 
 
 dollars." Opinion: If bank is a holder in 
 due course, it can recover for amount of 
 check as originally drawn, but from the facts 
 stated, it is doutbful that bank is such holder 
 in due course. Vol. 6, p. 631, Feb., 191-i. 
 
 Recovery of money paid 
 
 Recovery by drawee from accommodution indorser 
 of raised check. See 70 
 
 101. (Ark.) A drawer filled out a check 
 in figures $11.85, leaving the line for the 
 written amount blank. The payee changed 
 the figures to $831.85 in a way not discern- 
 ible except under glass and filled in the writ- 
 ten part of the check for that amount. Opin- 
 ion: Bank which pays check is not respon- 
 sible because of drawer's negligence. Vol. 5, 
 p. 828, June, 1913. 
 
 102. (Colo.) A check, made payable to 
 two joint payees, was altered by one of the 
 payees by erasing the name of the other. It 
 was then negotiated to a local merchant who 
 deposited it in his bank which collected the 
 amount from the drawee. The drawee having 
 Iteen apprised of the alteration demands re- 
 imbursement from the depository bank. 
 Opinion: The check was avoided by the al- 
 teration ; the local merchant took no title and 
 the drawee bank is entitled to recover the 
 amount from the depository bank, which, in 
 turn, has recourse upon the merchant. Vol. 
 10, p. 311, Oct., 1917. 
 
 103. (Iowa.) A drawee bank paid two 
 checks bearing the genuine signature of its 
 customers, but their amounts of nine dollars 
 and six dollars were raised to ninety dollars 
 and sixty dollars respectively. Opinion: The 
 drawee bank has a right of recovery of the 
 excess paid upon the raised checks from the 
 owner who received payment upon the prin- 
 ciple that money paid under a mistake of fact 
 is recoverable. Vol. 9, p. 584, Jan., 1917. 
 
 104. (N. H.) A bank paid its custom- 
 er's check for $80 to another customer. Ten 
 flays later it was advised that the check had 
 been raised from $S. Opinion: The drawer 
 is not chargeal)le unless he had left bhuiks in 
 the check which the holder wa.s able to fill out 
 without suspicion. In the absence of such 
 negligence the drawer is chargeable with $8 
 and the sum of $72 representing the raised 
 amount is properly chargeal)le against the 
 other customer. Vol. 8, p. 327, Oct., 1915. 
 
 105. (N. Y.) A customer presented for 
 deposit to his account a draft, the body of 
 which was visibly altered. The bank refused 
 to receive the draft, taking the position that 
 
 the amount should be properly authenticated 
 by the maker or a new draft issued. Opinion : 
 If the check was raised, the drawee paying 
 the same could recover the money paid. The 
 bank would not be safe in receiving such 
 draft for collection and should send the draft 
 back, rather than forward it for payment or 
 rejection and thus avoid correspondence and 
 trouble. Vol. 6, p. 35, July, 1913. 
 
 106. (Ore.) A bank paid a check, raised 
 from $20.90 to $40.90. The alteration was 
 apparent on the face of the check. Opinion: 
 The drawee bank can recover the money as 
 paid without consideration in the absence of 
 special circumstances of negligence or laches 
 making it lial)le. The fact that the altera- 
 tion was plainly shown does not prevent re- 
 covery, as such fact is equally apparent to the 
 holder. Vol. 8, p. 913, April, 191G. 
 
 107. (Pa.) A drawee who pays a raised 
 check is entitled to recover the money paid 
 from the person receiving payment, in the 
 absence of negligence in giving notice after 
 discovery of the forgery. Vol. 1, p. 141, 
 Oct., 1908. 
 
 Statement of consideration altered 
 
 XoTE: III a number of cases wliere a creditor 
 takin;;' a check for a disputed account containing 
 a condition tliat it is in full has. without the 
 knowledge or authority of the dcl)tor, erased 
 the condition and collected the check and then 
 sued the debtor for the balance claimed to be due, 
 it has been held that his acceptance and collection 
 of the check binds him to the condition and he 
 can recover nothinjj further. Hussey v. Crass, 
 .5.3 S. W. (Tenn.) DSO; Worcester Color Co. v. 
 Henry Woods' Sons Co. {1.5 X. E. (Mass.) 392; 
 Hulfr. .Johnson. 4(5 Atl. (R. I.) 182; Kerr v. 
 Sanders, 2!) S. E. (X. C.) 043: Smith r. Rron- 
 stein. 107 X. Y. Sui)p. lO^^; Griblde r. Raymond 
 Van Praa-,' Supply Co. 10!) X. Y. Supp. 242. Ac- 
 cording to tlie view of these cases as the altera- 
 tion is unauthorized, it does not affect tlie rights 
 of tlie debtor and is therefore immaterial. Xone 
 of tliese cases, however, involved tiie rigiit of the 
 drawer to refuse to be cliarfjed witli tlie amount 
 by the bank on tlie j,'round tiiat jjuynient of the 
 altered check was without autliority. .Should 
 sucli a case arise there is fair "ground to conclude 
 tiiat tlie payment would be held uiiaiitliorized and 
 non-chargeable. 
 
 108. (Conn.) A clieck in tiie ordinary 
 form I'ontainiMl above the signature of drawer 
 the words "For account indebtedness Doe 
 to Roe." These words were .'scratched out or 
 partially erased by the })ayee. The drawee 
 refused payment on the ground that it was an 
 altered check. Opinion: The bank should 
 not pay because (1) alteration of the state- 
 ment of consideration would probably be held 
 material and avoid check, and (2) bank as 
 paying agent of depositor would not properly 
 
 13
 
 100 
 
 DIGEST OF LEGAL OPINIONS 
 
 protect liis interests in making payment. 
 Vol. 4, p. (i20, April, 1912. 
 
 109. (N. J.) A drawee bank paid its 
 customer's check in which the words "for 
 full payment of account" were erased by the 
 payee. Opinion: The bank should not have 
 ])aid the check as the erasure of the words was 
 a material alteration and the check could not 
 be char<red to the customer's account. Vol. 
 3, p. 588, April, 1911. See Note supra, 307 
 ct scq. 
 
 110. (Ohio.) The erasure by the payee 
 of the words "in full of all accounts or 
 claims" is probably a material alteration, 
 which would avoid the instrument. Bank 
 should not pay check containing such era- 
 sure. Vol. 5, p. 827, June, 1913. See Note 
 supra, 307 et seq. 
 
 111. (Pa.) A bank should not pay a 
 check which shows alteration in the statement 
 of consideration, and should obey the request 
 of a customer to refuse payment of checks 
 thus altered. Vol. 5, p. 107, Aug., 1912. 
 
 Time of payment altered 
 
 112. (Ind.) Where payee of note changes 
 time of payment without assent of maker, 
 this constitutes a material alteration and 
 avoids instrument unless change is made to 
 make instrument conform to intent and 
 agreement of parties. Where note avoided 
 by material alteration, original consideration 
 generally held recoverable unless alteration 
 fraudulently made, in which case considera- 
 tion is forfeited. Vol. 10, p. 44, July, 1917. 
 
 113. (N. J.) The alteration of the date 
 
 by the maker of a note before delivery does 
 not affect its validity. If the change in date 
 were made by the holder without the maker's 
 consent, the note would be avoided as to him. 
 Vol. 4, p. 309, Nov., 1911. 
 
 114. (N. J.) A check after indorsement 
 by the payee was stolen, the date altered, and 
 then negotiated to a bona fide holder. It 
 was presented through the exchanges and 
 paid by the drawee bank. Opinion: Bank is 
 not liable for payment of check, it having 
 been negotiated after the alteration to a 
 holder in due course, who, under the Nego- 
 tiable Instruments Law, was entitled to pay- 
 ment according to its original tenor. Vol. 3, 
 p. 73G, June, 1911. 
 
 115. (Pa.) The payee altered the date 
 of a cheek drawn by A to six months later 
 and then negotiated it. The bank cashing 
 the check forwarded it to A's bank, where it 
 was protested. The payee could not be found. 
 Opinion: The cashing bank cannot recover 
 from the drawer if the alteration was appar- 
 ent; but if not apparent, the check is en- 
 forceable according to its original tenor and 
 the purchaser's right of recovery depends on 
 whether the check was negotiated within a 
 reasonable time after issue. Vol. 7, p. 39, 
 July, 1914. 
 
 Check written in lead pencil 
 
 116. (Ark.) The drawer who writes his 
 check in lead pencil is not, for that reason, 
 liable for the difference to the purchaser of 
 such check after it has been raised. Vol. 4, 
 p. 752, June, 1912. 
 
 ATTACHMENT AND GARNISHMENT 
 
 Account owned by one person in name 
 of another 
 
 117. (Ark.) A customer carries his ac- 
 count in his father's name which is subject 
 to checks d^a^vn by him in father's name. 
 The bank is served with garnishment writ 
 against the customer in his own name and 
 asks whether it will affect the balance. Opin- 
 ion: The bank knowing that the deposit be- 
 longs to the customer and not to his father, 
 the account is subject to garnishment al- 
 though carried in the father's name. Vol. 4, 
 p. 306, Nov., 1911. 
 
 Attachment of insufficient deposit by 
 two creditors 
 
 118. (Me.) A bank is served simultan- 
 eously with two writs of trustee process 
 against the account of the same depositor in 
 
 behalf of different creditors. Each writ 
 called for $7,000, and the deposit amounted 
 to $13,000. The deposit being insufficient 
 for both, the bank asks which writ is given 
 the preference. Opinion: The rule in Massa- 
 chusetts and probably in Maine is that the re- 
 spective plaintiffs are entitled to recover an 
 aliquot part of the deposit, each being en- 
 titled to one-half the fund, although their 
 claims are for unequal amounts. In Penn- 
 sylvania the rule appears to be that each 
 would share in the deposit pro rata, accord- 
 ing to their respective claims. In the instant 
 case, the claims being of equal amount, each 
 would take one-half in anv event. Vol. 10, 
 p. 313, Oct., 1917. 
 
 Bank garnished for debt of check holder 
 
 119, (Ark.) A having an account with 
 a bank gave his check to B who indorsed it 
 
 14
 
 ATTACHMENT AND GARNISHMENT 
 
 127 
 
 over to C. Before presentment C was sued 
 by creditors and a writ of garnishment was 
 served on A's bank against "Anything in your 
 possession belonging to C." Opinion: The 
 garnishment will not hold good, because it is 
 incorrect to assume that the bank was in- 
 debted to C before the check was presented. 
 Even if the bank were indebted to C, the 
 order should require the surrender of the 
 check as a condition of making pavment. 
 Vol. 1, p. 141, Oct., 1908. 
 
 120. (S. Dak.) Certain creditors of A 
 learned tliat he was to receive commissions in 
 a land deal. A bank in the same town was 
 served with a writ of garnishment for any 
 funds that might pass through its hands be- 
 longing to A. A's attorney gave his check 
 to A, drax^ai on the said bank, and the bank 
 asks if it is proper to pay the same. Opin- 
 ion: Check is not an assignment of deposit 
 and drawee bank is not indebted to payee, 
 who is defendant in garnishment proceedings, 
 and not liable where check is paid to payee 
 after service of writ. Nor is bank held for 
 funds of defendant received after service of 
 writ. Vol. 9, p. 822, April, 1917. 
 
 Bank not indebted at time writ is served 
 
 121. (Ark.) A customer purchased 
 drafts from a bank. The bank is served with 
 garnishment writ against the customer. At 
 time of service, the customer has not cashed 
 the drafts. Opinion: Judgment will not be 
 rendered against the garnishee bank unless 
 the drafts are delivered into court or until 
 they mature and it is shown the customer 
 still holds them. Vol. 4, p. 306, Nov., 1911. 
 
 122. (Wash.) A bank received a tele- 
 graphic request from its correspondent to 
 pay a specified person a certain sum. A cred- 
 itor of such person served a writ of garnish- 
 ment upon the bank before it received a re- 
 mittance from its correspondent. Opinion: 
 The garnishment would not hold, because the 
 bank was not indebted to the person at the 
 time the writ was served. Vol. 5, p. 664, 
 April, 1913. 
 
 Note: Now hy judicial const ruction of the 
 Washington Code, a writ of parnislimcut holds 
 the moneys or poods of defendant in liands of 
 garnishee at the time of the service of tlie writ, 
 or at any time tliereafter until the service of the 
 answer of the garnishee, but not debts created 
 between time of service of the answer of the 
 garnishee and the time of the trial of the issue. 
 
 Bank's obligation to disclose balance 
 
 123. (Mich.) A bank is under obliga- 
 tion to disclose the amount of the balance 
 
 wliere it is garni(^hed bv a creditor of the cus- 
 tomer. Vol. 4, p. 26, July, 1911. 
 
 Funds represented by certificate of deposit 
 
 124. (III.) Tnder the law of Illinois a 
 bank, national or state, is not liable to gar- 
 nishment by a creditor of its depositor for 
 funds represented by an outstanding nego- 
 tiable certificate of deposit. Vol. 6, p. 211, 
 Sept., 1913. 
 
 125. (Iowa.) A bank sul)mits tiie fol- 
 lowing form of certificate of deposit and asks 
 Avhether it is subject to attachment by cred- 
 itors of the payee. 
 
 ''Tlie Blank National Bank, 
 
 Blank, Iowa, Dec. 1. 1917. 
 John Doe has deposited in this bank One 
 Hundred Dollars payable to tiie order of 
 himself in current funds on the return of this 
 certificate properly indorsed three months 
 after date with interest at the rate of 4 per 
 cent, per annum. No interest after maturity. 
 Certificate of Deposit 
 
 Not subject to check Cashier" 
 
 Opinion: A certificate of deposit in the hands 
 of the payee is property subject to attach- 
 ment but where a bank is garnished for funds 
 represented by an outstanding negotiable cer- 
 tificate it is entitled, under the law of Iowa, 
 to complete indemnity before sulforing judg- 
 ment; if, however, the certificate is non-ne- 
 gotiable paper, the bank can be charged as 
 garnishee of the payee before notice of assign- 
 ment. The above certificate being payable 
 *'in current funds" has been held according 
 to Iowa decisions a non-negotiable instru- 
 ment. Vol. 10, p. 530, Jan., 1918. See 
 271, 272. 
 
 126. (R. I.) A deposited funds in a na- 
 tional bank in Khode Island and received 
 therefor a negotiable certificate of deposit 
 payable to himself. A creditor of A seeks to 
 attach the deposit. Opinion: The deposit is 
 exempt from attaclimcnt under the provisions 
 of till' l{hode Island statute exempting d(4)t.s 
 scoured by bills of exchange or negotiable 
 promissory notes. Vol. 9, p. 145, Aug., 191(). 
 
 127. (R. I.) I> tin- wife of A, dcposita 
 
 money with a bank as collateral security on a 
 note discounted by .\ for bis business. B 
 wants the fund free from attachment and the 
 bank advises her to indorse a certificate of 
 deposit in blank and leave it with the bank 
 accompanied by a letter stating the desired 
 purpose. Opinion: A creditor of the hus- 
 band would have no right to att<ach a fund l>c- 
 longing to the wife specially pledged by her 
 
 15
 
 128 
 
 DK!EST OF LEGAL OPINIONS 
 
 as security for lior luishaiid's deljt. In Rhode 
 Island a deposit represented l)y an outstand- 
 ing nefifotiablc certificate is exempt from at- 
 tachment; but the certificate itself is subject 
 to seizure l)y cr<Mlitors of the owner. Vol. 5, 
 J). ()70, April, l!)i;3. 
 
 Funds represented by outstanding nego- 
 tiable instrument 
 
 128. (Ala.) A bouglit a pair of mules 
 from B giving his note in payment, payable 
 to B's wife. C had judgment against B and 
 served a writ of garnishment on A for the 
 amount. Later D bought the note with no 
 notice of the garnishment, and C claims the 
 amount of the garnishment out of the note. 
 Opinion: In Alal)ama, while a negotiable note 
 is current as negotiable paper and subject to 
 be transferred to a bona fide purchaser with- 
 out notice and before maturity, the maker of 
 the note is not subject to garnishment, nor 
 chargeable as a garnishee of the original 
 payee of the note. A's answer shows his only 
 indebtedness was to B on a note not yet ma- 
 tured made payable to B's wife, in which case 
 A would not be chargeable as garnishee. Vol. 
 11, p. 328, Dec., 1918. 
 
 129. (111.) A purchased a draft issued 
 by a bank in favor of B. A claimed that B 
 lost the draft and requested a duplicate. Be- 
 fore the duplicate was issued, a creditor of B 
 serves a writ of attachment upon the maker 
 of the draft. Opinion: Where a negotiable 
 draft has been issued by a bank and it is out- 
 standing, the drawer is not liable to garnish- 
 ment in suit of a creditor against the payee, 
 imder the law of Illinois, unless it can be 
 shown that the draft has matured and is still 
 in the hands of the payee. The bank should 
 not issue a duplicate draft unless indemnified 
 against loss. Vol. 9, p. 46, July, 1916. 
 
 130. (Tex.) A bank issued its cashier's 
 check of $1,000 to its customer, whose account 
 was later garnished while the check was still 
 outstanding. The customer had nothing to 
 his credit in open account and the bank seeks 
 to know its liability as garnishee at suit of 
 the creditor. Opinion: Where a bank has 
 issued a cashier's check which is outstanding 
 and unpaid, it is not liable as garnishee at 
 suit of a creditor of the payee, or indorsee 
 unless the check is shown to be in the hands 
 of such payee or indorsee after maturity; 
 that is to say, after such time as it would be 
 presumed overdue so that it^ transfer there- 
 after would subject the subsequent taker to 
 equities. Vol. 10, p. 781, May, 1918. 
 
 Notice with incorrect name 
 
 131. (Ala.) A bank having funds only 
 of "John Jones, Agent" is served with a writ 
 of garnishment against the funds of "John 
 Jones." The bank disregarded the writ and 
 was threatened with a damage suit because 
 the funds in fact belonged to John Jones. 
 Opinion: The bank not knowing the real 
 owner of the funds should not have taken the 
 risk of answering that it was not indebted 
 to Jones and then subsequently paying him 
 the money on his check as agent. Vol, 5, 
 p. 588, March, 1913. 
 
 132. (Minn.) A garnishment notice 
 was served on a bank charging funds 
 of Mary Smith, and Ijank carries an account 
 in the name of Mrs. James Smith, and subse- 
 quently pays without knowledge or notice of 
 the identity of the two. Opinion: The bank 
 is not liable for the amount of Mrs. James 
 Smith's deposit, as it has no knowledge or 
 notice of its depositor's identity, and there 
 were no circumstances which would charge it 
 with the duty of making inquirv as to such 
 identity. Vol. 9, p. 821, April, 1917. 
 
 Precedence over checks not presented be- 
 fore service of writ 
 
 133. (111.) A depositor had a balance of 
 $•±0, which amount was garnished on Jan. 10, 
 1912. Two checks of $5 and $10, drawn 
 prior to Jan. 10 were presented after the ser- 
 vice of the writ. Opinion: The garnishment 
 takes precedence over the checks dated before 
 but not presented until after the service of 
 the writ. Deposits made after the service of 
 the writ are not covered by it. Vol. 4, p. 489, 
 Feb., 1912. 
 
 134. (Mo.) The check of a depositor 
 was presented after a writ of garnishment 
 Avas served attaching the deposit. The check 
 was issued before the service of the writ. 
 Opinion: The writ of garnishment takes pre- 
 cedence over the outstanding check, because 
 the check of itself is not an assignment of 
 the deposit, and the bank is not liable to the 
 holder unless and until it accepts or certifies 
 the check. Vol. 9, p. 146, Aug., 1916. 
 
 135. (R. I.) A check comes to a bank 
 for payment through its correspondent arriv- 
 ing at 8.30 A. M., and is charged to the cus- 
 tomer's account between 11 and 12 o'clock. 
 At 9.01 A. M. the account is attached. The 
 bank asks which takes precedence. Opinion: 
 A writ of garnishment served against a de- 
 posit account at 9.01 A. M. takes precedence 
 
 16
 
 ATTACHMENT AND GA"RNISHMEXT 
 
 143 
 
 over the debtor's check received throu<,di the 
 mail at 8.30 A. M. but not charged against 
 his account until 11 A. M. There appears 
 to be no reason why a writ of attachment 
 against a bank served upon the proper officer 
 at the bank cannot be just as eii'ective when 
 served during non-banking hours at it would 
 be when served during banking hours. Vol. 
 11, p. 98, Aug., 1918. 
 
 Proceeds of bill of lading draft 
 
 See Bills of lading, 244-2(50 
 
 136. (Mich.) A draft with bill of lad- 
 ing attached was received by a bank from its 
 customer for collection. It was forwarded 
 to a collecting bank and the payor after pay- 
 ing the draft immediately garnislied the pro- 
 ceeds for an indebtedness of the customer. 
 The customer was obliged to settle on the 
 payor's terms and it is claimed that the col- 
 lecting bank wrongfully withlield the funds, 
 and tiiat they could not legally be reached by 
 garnishment proceedings. Opinion: Where 
 the proceeds of a bill of lading draft are gar- 
 nished in the hands of collecting bank for in- 
 debtedness of the shipper, the garnishing 
 creditor is not entitled to the proceeds if the 
 draft has been sold by the shipper prior to 
 collection. But if the bank was merely an 
 agent for collection, and the proceeds be- 
 longed to the customer, the amount would be 
 subject to garnishment proceedings. The 
 duty of the collecting bank when served with 
 process of garnishment is to advise the for- 
 warding bank of the service of the writ. If 
 the forwarding bank claimed the funds as its 
 property, the collecting bank should make 
 due answer, naming the bank as owner, and 
 pay funds into court taking receipt therefor. 
 If the customer owned proceeds, he should 
 have opportunity to contest proceedings to 
 release the funds under bond. Vol. 10, p. 
 312, Oct., 1917. 
 
 137. (Mo.) A l)ank forwarded for col- 
 lection a draft with a bill of lading attached. 
 The proceeds were garnished in tiie hands of 
 the drawee bank because of a claimed short- 
 age, but the ])rosecution of the garnishment 
 proceedings has been delayed three years. 
 Opinion: Application for dismissal of the 
 proceedings because of undue delay should 
 be made; it the proceeds belonged to the dis- 
 counting bank they are not subject in any 
 event to garnishment by a creditor of the 
 shipper. Vol. 8, p. 801, :March, 191G. 
 
 138. (Tex.) A bank purchased from its 
 customer a draft with a bill of lading at- 
 tached, and forwarded it for collection to a 
 
 neighboring bank. The latter bank, being a 
 creditor of the shipper, attached the proceeds 
 in its hands and refused to transmit the 
 amount to the purchaser of the draft. Opin- 
 ion: Bank purchasing draft with bill of la- 
 ding attached has a right to the goods, or to 
 the proceeds of the draft when paid, superior 
 to an attaching creditor of the shipper. Vol. 
 10, p. 853, June, 1!>18. 
 
 Proceedings may be instituted before 
 judgment 
 
 139. (Okla.) A customer overdrew his 
 account in a bank and opened up a new ac- 
 count in anotlier bank in Oklahoma. The 
 creditor bank wishes to garnish the new ac- 
 count. Opinion: The creditor bank should 
 bring an action against its del)tor and after 
 the action is brought, proceed at once by 
 writ of garnishment against the otlier bank. 
 Oarnishment proceedings may be instituted 
 before judgment against the principal debtor 
 under the laws of Oklahoma but the plaintiff 
 nuist have judgment in the princijial action 
 I)efore trial can be had in the garnishee ac- 
 tion. A'ol. 5, p. TjI, :Mav, 1!I13. 
 
 Property subject to garnishment 
 
 140. (Cal.) A bank rentiil a .safe de- 
 posit box to a holder, giving him two keys 
 and keeping a master key for all of the boxes 
 held. A creditor of the box holder desires 
 to attach the contents of the box. Opinion: 
 The contents of the safe deposit box belong- 
 ing to a box renter are subject to attachment, 
 and according to the weight of more recent 
 authority the bank may also be garnished for 
 such contents. Vol. (i, p. 505, Jan., 1014. 
 
 141. (Idaho.) A savings account is sub- 
 ject to garnishment, and it is doul)tful if the 
 garnishee bank can require n-turn of the 
 book, as it is the property of the dej)ositor and 
 is not negotiable. The dilTerence between a 
 negotiable certificate of dejiosit and a savings 
 bank book with respect to attachment or gar- 
 nishment proceedings is that in case of a ne- 
 gotialde certificate the debt of the bank runs 
 to the holder of the certificate and not to the 
 oriirinal depositor. Vol. 10, j). 3S0, Nov., 
 1917. 
 
 142. (Mich.) An account rej)rescntcd 
 by a savings i)aidv pass-book is subject to gar- 
 nishment. Vol. 4, p. 21(), Oct., 1911. 
 
 143. (Mont.) In Mont-ana, where a 
 bank is served with a writ of attachment of 
 moneys owing its depositor, it is only liable 
 for the amount of the balance to the credit of 
 the depositor at the time the write is served. 
 
 17
 
 144 
 
 Dir^KST OF LF/IAL OPIMOXS 
 
 This rule also liolds in California, (^miiccli- 
 cut, (jicorgia, Iowa, Kansas, iMaino, Michij^an, 
 Minnesota, Texas and Wisconsin. The statutes 
 in Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Maryland, 
 Massachusetts, Missouri, New Hampshire, 
 North Carolina, rcnnsylvania, Vermont, 
 West Vir<finia and Washint^ton, hold the bank 
 liable for subsequent deposits. Vol. 11, p. 
 G73, June, 1!)19. 
 
 144. (Ore.) A savings account is sub- 
 ject to attachment, but if the account has 
 been assigned before the service of the writ of 
 attachment on the bank, the assignee is pro- 
 tected, whether or not the bank has been no- 
 tified of the assignment. Vol. 9, p. 826, 
 April, 1917, 
 
 145. (Wash.) An account in a savings 
 bank equally as in a commercial bank is sub- 
 ject to garnishment by a creditor of the de- 
 positor in the absence of a statute exempting 
 such an account from garnishment. Vol. 7, 
 p. 308, Nov., 1914. 
 
 Set off by bank to defeat attachment 
 
 146. (Kan.) A bank makes a loan to a 
 customer and credits him with the proceeds. 
 Before the proceeds are checked out, the ac- 
 count is garnished and the bank desires to 
 cancel the credit. Opinion: The mere fact 
 that the account is garnished before the pro- 
 ceeds are checked out will not entitle the bank 
 to cancel the credit. But if the loan was 
 
 obtained Ijy fraud, the credit may be cancelled 
 or if the customer has become insolvent the 
 bank may, according to the law of some states 
 (Ca., Iowa, Ky., Mass., Minn., Tenn., N. J., 
 Ohio, N. C. and Texas) a contrary rule ob- 
 taining in other state (Ala., Miss., N. Y., 
 Pa., K. I., 8. C. and Wis.) set off the insolvent 
 customer's deposit against his unmatured 
 indebtedness. Vol. 9, p. 502, Dec, 191G. 
 
 147. (Mont.) A creditor learning that 
 its debtor had a deposit in a certain l)ank at- 
 tached the funds. The bank who owned a 
 past due note of the same debtor set off his 
 deposit against the note so as to defeat the 
 attachment and made a return to the sheriff 
 on the balance remaining after its note was 
 paid. Opinion: The bank had the right to 
 make such set off and such right, although 
 subsequently exercised, existed prior to the 
 attachment and enabled the bank to take 
 priority over the attaching creditor. Vol. 
 4, p. 95, Aug., 1911. 
 
 148. (W. Va.) A customer having a 
 balance with his bank of $500 was indebted 
 to the bank on a matured note of $2,500. A 
 writ of garnishment was served upon the 
 bank by a creditor of the customer on the 
 same day the note was due. Opinion: The 
 bank owning the note had a right to set off 
 the deposit against the note and make reply 
 that it was not indebted to its depositor. Vol. 
 6, p. 756, May, 1914. 
 
 ATTORNEY'S FEES 
 
 Attorney's fee note payable at bank 
 
 149. (Ariz.) A local attorney presented 
 a past due note payable at a bank for pa}'- 
 nient, adding thereto ten per cent, for his 
 fees, in accordance with clause expressed in 
 the note : "If this note is not paid when due 
 and is collected by attorney or legal proceed- 
 ings, we promise to pay an additional sum of 
 10 per cent, of the amount of this note as at- 
 torney's fees." The bank asks (1) whether 
 it should pay without the special authoriza- 
 tion of the maker and (2) was the amount 
 collectible on the note merely its face value 
 or the protest fees in addition. Opinion: 
 Where a note providing for attorney's fees if 
 not paid when due and collected by an at- 
 torney is made payable at a bank in which 
 the maker has sufficient fimds at maturity 
 and the note is not presented until after ma- 
 turity and then by an attorney, it is (1) 
 doubtful whether the bank has authority to 
 
 pay the overdue note without express author- 
 ization from the maker, and (2) in any event 
 the amount collectible is the face of the note, 
 without attorney's fees. The safest course 
 for the bank is to obtain an express instruc- 
 tion from the maker of the note. Vol. 11, 
 p. 437, Feb., 1919. 
 
 Claim of attorney's fee in bankruptcy 
 150. (Miss.) The maker of a note, con- 
 taining a provision for the payment of an at- 
 torney's fee of fifteen per cent, if not paid at 
 maturity, became a bankrupt before the note 
 fell due. The receivers of the bankrupt es- 
 tate refused to pay the additional attorney's 
 fee. Opinion: The claim for the attorney's 
 fee upon the note which did not mature until 
 after the maker became bankrupt was not 
 provable against his estate, because such 
 claim is not ''a fixed liability absolute^ owing 
 at the time of the filing of the petition in 
 bankruptcy." Vol. 8, p. 143, Aug., 1915. 
 
 18
 
 ATTORXEY'S FEES 
 
 159 
 
 Negotiability of notes with attorney's fee 
 clause 
 
 151. (Mo.) The Xegotiable Instru- 
 ments Act provides that the instrument shall 
 be negotiable although it is payable "with 
 costs of collection or an attorney's fee in case 
 payment shall not be made at maturity," and 
 any clause which sufiiciently conforms to 
 such provision will not affect the negotia- 
 bility of the instrument. Vol. G, p. 630, 
 March, 1914. 
 
 152. (Mo.) A note containing a clause 
 providing for the payment of an attorney's 
 fee in case payment is not made at maturity 
 is valid in Missouri and negotiable under the 
 provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 
 Vol. 6, p. G30, March, 1914. 
 
 153. (N. J.) Under the law of New Jersey 
 a note containing a provision for attorney's 
 fee if not paid at maturity is both valid and 
 negotiable. The following clause if inserted 
 in a note is valid and the note negotiable : 
 "I further agree that if this note is not paid 
 when due to pay all cost necessary for collec- 
 tion, including ton per cent, for attornev's 
 fees." Vol. 8, p. 419, Nov., 1915. 
 
 154. (N. Y.) The face of a note con- 
 tains the following statement : "The maker of 
 this note hereby agrees in the event of non- 
 payment of the note when due to pay an 
 amount equal to 10 per cent, of the face of 
 the note as attorney's fees, if such an amount 
 shall be charged as attorney's fees for the col- 
 lection of the note." Question is raised as 
 to the validity of this clause and negotiability 
 of note under the law of New York. 
 Opinion: The note is negotiable under the 
 Negotiable Instruments Law, and the clause 
 providing for attorney's fees although not 
 specifically passed upon by a New York Court 
 would undouhtodlv l)e held to be valid and 
 enforceable. Vol.' 9, p. 824, April, 1917. 
 
 155. (Okla.) Negotialde Instruments 
 Act makes note negotiable although it is pay- 
 able "with costs of collection or an attorney's 
 fee in case payment shall not be made at ma- 
 turity." Opinion: A note containing clause 
 promising to pay "as collection foes, tlie ad- 
 ditional sum of 10 ])er centum of ])rin(ipal 
 then due, if collection bo made through at- 
 torney" is negotiable under Act. Vol. G, 
 p. 630, March, 1914. 
 
 'Validity of attorney's fee clause 
 
 156. (Ark.) In Arkansas the courts 
 have held that the stipulation for an attor- 
 
 ney's fee does not affect the negotiability of 
 a note, but that the stipulation is itself void 
 and unenforceable. The subsequent passage 
 of the Negotiable Instruments Act may or 
 may not validate such stipulation. Vol. 7, 
 p. 773. April, 1915. 
 
 157. (Ark) Upon the question of the 
 effect of a stipulation for attorney's fees in 
 promissory notes, the four following con- 
 flicting views before the Negotiable Instru- 
 ments Act were held in the various states: 
 (1) that which sustains both the validity of 
 the provision and the negotiability of tlie in- 
 strument; (2) that which holds that the pro- 
 vision is valid and enforceable but that it de- 
 stroys negotiability; (3) that which holds 
 that negotiability is not affected but the pro- 
 vision is void and unenforceable, and (4) 
 that which holds that the provision for an ad- 
 ditional amount as attorney fee above the 
 higiiest rate of interest allowable renders the 
 transaction usurious. The Negotiable Instru- 
 ments Act which declares that the negotia- 
 bility is unaffected by a provision for attor- 
 ney's fee "in case payment shall not be made 
 at maturity" leaves uncertain the question 
 whether such provision is valid and enforce- 
 able in those states which held it void before 
 the Act was passed. In Ohio and West Vir- 
 ginia the Act does not validate the attorney 
 fee provision; but in Virginia and Colorado 
 such provision under the Act is held valid. 
 In Nebraska, North Carolina and South Da- 
 kota the Negotiable Instruments Act itself 
 expressly provides that nothing in the Act 
 shall be construed to authorize the enforce- 
 ment of the stipulation for the attorney's fee. 
 A^ol. 7, p. 773, April, 1915. 
 
 158. (Ind.) In Ohio, stii>ulations in 
 promissory notes providing for attorney's fees 
 are against public policy, void and unenforce- 
 able, and the Su])reme Court of Ohio has 
 held that the provision of the Negotiable In- 
 struments Act providing that buch stipula- 
 tions do not all'ect negotial)ilitv, does not 
 make them valid. Vol. 6, p. 759", May, 1914. 
 
 159. (Mich.) A note in Michigan con- 
 tained the following provision: "I further 
 agree to pay ten per cent, additional as at- 
 torney fee, if this note is not jiaid when due, 
 and is coll(>ited by or through an attorney at 
 law." Opinion: Prior to tlic passage of the 
 Negotiable Instruments Act in Michigan, 
 the attorney fee provision was void and un- 
 enforceable but under the Act which makes 
 a note containing such a clause negotiable it 
 has not been deci<led in Michigan whether or 
 not such provision is thereby validated and 
 
 19
 
 IGO 
 
 du;kst of legal oimxioxs 
 
 ilie few (k'C'isioiis upon tlic point in other 
 states connict. Vol. 8, p. 701, Feb., liHG. 
 
 160. (Neb.) Under the })reseni hnv of 
 Nchraska, a provision in a inort<,'af(e that in 
 the event of foreclosure the defenchuit siiall 
 pay a reasonable attorney's fee, to be deter- 
 mined by tlie court and taxed as costs in the 
 case, is invalid and not enforceable. Sucli a 
 stij)ulation would not affect the ne2;otial)ility 
 of a note. For tlie history of the law of th(! 
 state on the subject see Vol. 8, p. 249, Sept., 
 l!)ir). 
 
 161. (Okla.) In Oklahoma a note pro- 
 viding for "a reasonable amount" as attor- 
 ney's fee if not paid at maturity is negotiable, 
 and should suit be commenced would be en- 
 forceable for a reasonable amount charged by 
 the attorney Avhen pleaded and proved ; and a 
 note providing for "ten per cent." attorney's 
 fee would be enforceable for that amount, in 
 the absence of plea or proof that such fee was 
 unreasonable. Vol. 8, p. 29, July, 1915. 
 
 162. (S. Dak.) In South Dakota, the 
 ]ir(n ision for an attc^rney's fee in a promissory 
 note has been held void and unenforceable, 
 but does not afl'ec^t its negotiability. In pass- 
 ing the Negotiable Instruments Act, the leg- 
 islature eliminated the provision that negotia- 
 bility is not affected by the attorney fee clause 
 and substituted a provision that nothing in 
 the Act should authorize inclusion in a judg- 
 ment on an instrument a sum for attorney's 
 fees or any other costs not now taxable by 
 law. Vol. 7, p. 774, April, 191;j. 
 
 163. (W. Va.) While in the far greater 
 number of states attorney's fee notes are both 
 negotiable and valid as to attorney's fees, the 
 question remains undecided in those states, 
 such as Virginia, where the courts have held 
 such stipulations to be penalties and against 
 public policy and void, and the legislature 
 has later enacted the Negotiable Instruments 
 Act whether such Act abrogates the decisions 
 and validates such stipulations. The proba- 
 bility is that the Act would be held to validate 
 such provisions. Vol. 4, p. 215, Oct., 1911. 
 
 BANKS AND BANKING 
 
 See National Banks, 870-887; Branch Banks, 261-265 
 
 Examination of books and records 
 See 175, 22G, 227 
 
 164. (Mich.) In a suit by a bank 
 against a depositor, the defense requested the 
 bank to produce its books and records from 
 1890 to date for the use of the defendant's at- 
 torney for such time as he may take to pre- 
 ]iare his defense. Upon the bank's refusal 
 the defendant proposes to serve the process 
 of subpoena duces tecum. Opinion: In suit 
 by bank against depositor, bank officer served 
 with subpoena duces tecinn must produce 
 books called for containing evidence relating 
 to transaction, in absence of statute permit- 
 ting authenticated copy — but if subpoena is 
 unreasonable in its requirements bank may be 
 protected under the search and seizure clause 
 of the Fourth Amendment to the Federal 
 Constitution. Vol. 11, p. 331, Dec, 1918. 
 
 165. (Okla.) In a suit by a depositor 
 against a bank, an officer served with a sub- 
 poena duces iecum must produce the books 
 called for containing evidence relating to the 
 transaction in the absence of a statute per- 
 mitting an authenticated copy. Inconve- 
 nience to the bank or to the officer does not 
 justifv his refusal to obey the court order. 
 Vol. 7, p. 686, March, 1915. 
 
 Use of loose leaf books 
 
 166. (Wis.) The AYisconsin legislature 
 requires the books of original entry used in 
 banks to be permanently bound and prohibits 
 the card system as a sulistitute for a bank 
 ledger. This is probably the only state legis- 
 lation wdiich prohibits the use of loose leaf 
 books in banks. Vol. 4, p. 375, Dec, 1914. 
 
 Bank as agent to procure loan 
 
 167. (Mo.) Bank A offered to procure 
 a loan for Bank B which proposition was ac- 
 cepted. Thereupon Bank A sent a note it 
 had discounted to Bank B, which was taken 
 by the latter thinking it was an outside loan. 
 The note owned by Bank A was worthless. 
 Opinion : Bank A would be liable to Bank 
 B. It is a breach of duty for an agent em- 
 ployed to make an investment for his prin- 
 cipal to supply investments out of his own 
 property imless done with knowledge and con- 
 sent of the principal. Vol. 4, p. 753, June, 
 1912. 
 
 Bank as borrower on personal note of 
 executive officer 
 
 168. (Neb.) The cashier and manager 
 of a bank desiring to procure a loan for the 
 
 20
 
 BAXKS AND BANKING 
 
 [17-4 
 
 bank, gave his personal note secured by his 
 bank stock. The money passed to the bank, 
 but the loan did not appear on the books or 
 reports of the bank as a liability. There 
 was no written disclaimer from the lender 
 bank that they did not in any way hold the 
 borrowing bank. Opinion: The circum- 
 stances would probably be held to evidence a 
 loan and benefit to the bank and that the 
 cashier pledged his personal stock as security 
 and therefore the bank would be liable. 
 Wlictlier the loan is to the cashier or to the 
 bank is tested byHhe inquiry for whose bene- 
 fit the loan is made, which is based upon the 
 entire circumstances constituting the contract 
 and not on the form of the note alone, and 
 sometimes on tlie ratification of tlie loan by 
 the bank. Vol. 8, p. 140, Aug., 1915. 
 
 169. (Neb.) A bank discounted the per- 
 sonal note of the cashier of anotlier bank and 
 the proceeds were placed to the credit of tlie 
 bank sending the note. Tlie lender bank 
 also accepted as collateral, notes with t!ie 
 payee blank unfilled. Opinion: The dis- 
 counting of the personal note of the cashier 
 of anotlier bank and crediting such bank 
 with the proceeds would probably be held a 
 transaction with the bank, which would make 
 it liable on the note. Where collateral con- 
 sists of notes with the payee blank unfilled, 
 the lender bank is put on inquiry and takes 
 subject to tlie maker's defenses. Vol. 6, p. 
 577, Feb., 1914. 
 
 Banking hours 
 Sec 1, 1101, 1102, 11G4, 1100 
 
 170. (Mo.) The banks in a city in Mis- 
 souri agreed to change their banking hours by 
 closing Thursday afternoon during July ami 
 August. The banks question the legal right 
 to close and what would be tlieir lial)ility in 
 case a check was presented on Thursday after- 
 noon and payment refused. Opinion: Bank- 
 ing hours are not estalilished by law, but by 
 the banks themselves. The courts hold that 
 ltaid\s may establish reasonal)le hours for 
 transaction of business. It is competent for 
 the banks in question to cliange the banking 
 hours as indicated, and the changed banking 
 liours having been announced to the ])ublic 
 by advertisement, a check afterwards pre- 
 sented on Thursday afternoon will not be 
 subject to protest. Vol. 9, p. 983, June, 
 1917. 
 
 171. (N. C.) An express company ten- 
 dered a package of money to a bank in North 
 Carolina at 7 o'clock in the evening upon the 
 
 arrival of tlie train. The bank refused to 
 accept the shipment at that time of the night, 
 while the company claimed that it had no 
 safe place to store the money over night and 
 refused to make further shipments unless the 
 bank keeps open to receive them at 7 P. ^l. 
 Opinion: A tender of delivery of an express 
 package of money to a bank is sufficient if 
 made within the reasonable business hours 
 general to the place, although such tender is 
 made after the close of banking liours. What 
 is a reasonalde time for delivery is a question 
 for the jury and in this case 7 o'clock at night 
 in the winter time might be held an un- 
 reasonable time. In no event can the express 
 company, being a common carrier, discon- 
 tinue handling shipments to the bank. Vol. 
 7, p. G87, Marcli, 1915. 
 
 General duty of secrecy as to customer's 
 affairs 
 
 172. (Conn.) The banking law of 
 ('onnccticiit docs not prohibit a l)ank official 
 from giving information that a certain person 
 has an account in the bank, whether it be a 
 savings or commercial account, and provides 
 no penalty for the giving of such informa- 
 tion. Relation of banker and customer 
 creates duty of secrecy, and banker should not 
 disclose information as to account or affairs 
 of customer, except under legal compulsion ; 
 but in absence of statute, no legal conse- 
 quences would follow breach of tliis duty by 
 ])anker except a possible lial^ility in damages 
 in case customer could prove injury. Vol. 7, 
 p. 169, Sept., 1914. ISee 477, 1324. 
 
 Compulsory disclosure of customer's 
 
 balance for tax purposes, etc. 
 
 See 503 
 
 173. (La.) The Collector of Internal 
 I\c venue, wiio is authorized "to take evidence 
 touching any part of the administration of 
 Internal Revenue Laws,'' would presumably 
 be acting within the scope of his authority if 
 in a given case he required a bank olfieer to 
 irive information whether or not a dejiositor's 
 check was paid. Vol. 3. p. 10, July, 1910. 
 
 174. (N. Y.) A tax assessor being a di- 
 rector in a rival concern demanded of a bank 
 tliat it furnish a statement of the names of 
 its stockholders with tlie number of shares 
 held by eacli, under penalty, tlie information 
 probably to be used 1)V the assessor to an un- 
 fair advantage. Opinion: Tlie bank was 
 obliged to make the required statement, and 
 the assessor could be removed if found 
 
 21
 
 175 
 
 DIGEST OF LEGAL Ui'lMOXS 
 
 guilty of using the infoniiatioii in an im- 
 proper way. Vol. 5, p. 21, July, 1912. 
 
 175. (Pa.) The depositor of a hank 
 made returns to a tax assessor which did not 
 suit the oflicer. The assessor attempted to 
 (jet information from the hank concerning 
 the depositor's balance. Opinion: Decisions 
 protect hank ofhcers from heing compelled to 
 make disclosure of names of depositors in 
 gross and amounts of their deposits for pur- 
 poses of taxation — but in a proper proceed- 
 ing against one or more depositors, specified 
 by name, a bank officer is not privileged to 
 refuse to produce books and testify as to bal- 
 ances of such depositors. Vol. 5, p. 515, 
 Feb., 1913. 
 
 176. (Va.) In a proper legal proceed- 
 ing against a customer, the bank's officer can 
 be compelled to state the amount of his bal- 
 ance, the information not being privileged in 
 a legal sense. This case is differentiated 
 from those where the wholesale disclosure of 
 all of the depositors' balances is sought for 
 tax purposes, wherein the right to compel dis- 
 closure has been denied. Vol. 6, p. 431, Dec, 
 1913. 
 
 Guaranty by bank 
 See 874 
 
 177. (Kan.) A state bank in Kansas 
 wired that it would guarantee to pay a draft 
 by a drawer in Texas upon the Blank Produce 
 Co. in Kansas for a car of lemons. Opinion: 
 In the absence of express authority conferred 
 by statute, a bank has no power to guarantee 
 to pay the draft, it being a transaction in 
 which it has no interest and from which it 
 derives no substantial benefit and the bank 
 would not be liable upon the draft. Vol. 6, 
 p. 92, Aug., 1913. 
 
 178. (Fla.) A bill of lading draft w^as 
 drawn on a party in Mississippi and pay- 
 ment was guaranteed by a Mississippi bank. 
 The draft was marked paid and the bank 
 claimed to have fulfilled its guarantee, but 
 the proceeds were afterwards attached by the 
 consignee. Opinion: The draft in question 
 was a bill of lading draft within the meaning 
 of the Mississippi statute, which requires the 
 collecting bank to hold the proceeds 96 hours 
 after delivery of the bill of lading and not 
 an ordinary sight draft as to which it should 
 have remitted immediately. The bank which 
 guaranteed payment fulfilled its guarantee, 
 as it did not go to the extent of insuring that, 
 after payment, the proceeds would be paid 
 over free from attachment; but it is the pre- 
 
 vailing theory of the law that it is not com- 
 petent for a bank to bind itself by such a 
 guarantee. Vol. 2, p. 72, Aug., 1909. 
 
 179. (N. Y.) A bank guaranteed the sig- 
 nature to an assignment of a stock certificate 
 by using the words "signature guaranteed," 
 duly signed by a qualified officer. The ques- 
 tion concerns the extent of lialjility incurred 
 by a guaranty of signature. Opinion: A.s- 
 suming a case where the bank has jjower and 
 the officer autliority to make the guaranty, it 
 binds the bank for the genuineness of the sig- 
 nature as well as for the authority of the 
 person signing when the signature is made by 
 a representative ; but does not extend to war- 
 ranting the validity of the acts of the per.son 
 whose signature is guaranteed with reference 
 to the use of the certificate. Vol. 7, p. 999, 
 June, 1915. See 517. 
 
 180. (Okla.) A gives B a post-dated 
 check. B writes the bank in regard thereto 
 and the cashier mails a written guarantee to 
 B that the check will be paid when due. 
 Opinion: The cashier by virtue of his office 
 had no authority to bind the bank by guar- 
 anteeing payment of the check before its due 
 date and the bank is not bound. Vol. 8, 
 p. 322, Oct., 1915. See 14. 
 
 Indemnity bond covering risk of unauthor- 
 ized indorsements 
 
 181. (Minn.) A bank receives a large 
 volume of checks and drafts payable to cer- 
 tain clients of an attorney, who indorses them 
 for deposit in his personal account. x\ bond 
 of indemnity will secure the bank against 
 loss by reason of a possible unauthorized in- 
 dorsement by the attorney. For suggested 
 form of bond see Vol. 5, p. 445, Jan., 1913. 
 
 Liability of person identifying payee 
 
 182. (Ariz.) AHiere A orally identified 
 the payee of a check to the purchasing bank, 
 A is not liable to make the check good in the 
 event of non-payment, provided no false rep- 
 resentations were made by A which were acted 
 upon by the bank to its injury. To hold the 
 person identifying the payee liable in the 
 event of dishonor such person should be re- 
 quired to indorse the check. Vol. 3, p. 518, 
 March, 1911. See 615, 616, 636. 
 
 Loan to bank official restricted 
 
 183. (N. J.) Opinion: Section 12 of 
 New Jersey Banking Act which prohibits 
 a bank from making a loan to an officer or 
 director or clerk until certain requirements 
 
 22
 
 BANKS AND BAXKIXG 
 
 190 
 
 arc complied with might be construed to 
 apply to a loan to an executor, trustee or re- 
 ceiver who is an officer or director but not to 
 a loan to a corporation of which a director or 
 officer of the bank was an officer unless, in 
 reality, the officer was chief beneficiary of 
 such loan. Vol. 6, p. 375, Nov., 1913. 
 
 Investigation of private affairs by Con- 
 gressional Committee 
 
 184. (Ky.) The Committee on Banking 
 and Currency of the House of Representa- 
 tives required the state banks and trust com- 
 panies to fill out certain blanks in answer to 
 various questions concerning the private af- 
 fairs of the institution. For example, the in- 
 vestigation called for a list of the officers, 
 directors and stockholders, their stock- 
 holdings and loans, description of securities 
 hold, the dates and amounts of paper in- 
 dorsed for others, a list of borrowers, etc. 
 Opinion: Grave doubt as to jurisdiction 
 of House of Representatives or power of com- 
 mittee to investigate private affairs of state 
 banks and trust companies — questions of ju- 
 risdiction considered in light of Federal deci- 
 sions and 4th and 5th Amendments — further 
 question as to invasion of state rights — con- 
 clusion that general inquiry by a Congres- 
 sional Committee into the alfairs of all banks 
 of a state is probably beyond jurisdiction of 
 House of Representatives to authorize, and 
 tiiat national banks are not subject to pro- 
 posed investigation in view of provision of 
 National Bank Act limiting visitorial powers. 
 Vol. 4, p. 745, June, 1912. 
 
 Bank's right to pledge assets 
 
 185. (Ohio.) The City of D deposited 
 with an Ohio bank $30,000. The bank di- 
 rectors signed a bond to the city and to secure 
 themselves deposited $36,000 of the bank's 
 assets with a trustee. Opinion: In the ab- 
 sence of statutory prohibition there is no 
 reason of public jiolicy or otherwise why the 
 bank has not the right to pledge its assets to 
 secure the sureties on the bond. Vol. G, p. 
 99, Aug., 1913. 
 
 Bank as safe depositary 
 
 186. (Kan.) A bank leased a safe de- 
 posit box to A, who holds the key. His part- 
 nership business with B having failed, a re- 
 ceiver was appointed and A moved away. 
 A's wife who found the key demands the 
 right to open the box. Opinion: A bank 
 which leases a safe deposit box to a customer 
 who keeps the key is a bailee for hire under 
 
 duty to exercise reasonable care and should 
 not allow a person other than the customer 
 presenting the key access to such, except upon 
 written authority from the customer, whether 
 such person be the bailee's wife, or a receiver 
 of the bailee or any other person, unless com- 
 pelled to do so by valid judicial process. Vol. 
 11, p. 215, Oct., 1918. See 472. 
 
 Savings bank and bank prohibited from 
 transacting business in same room 
 
 187. (Ind.) New York legislation pro- 
 hibits the doing of business in the same room 
 by a bank and a savings bank. Massachu- 
 setts legislation includes the foregoing and 
 further prohibits officers of savings bank 
 from being officers of other banks. Vol. 3, 
 p. 4G9, Feb., 1911. 
 
 Use of word "Savings" by commercial 
 bank 
 
 188. (Ky.) A commercial l)ank in Ken- 
 tucky is not prohibited by statute from carry- 
 ing savings accounts and from having a sav- 
 ings department, but in that connection it 
 must keep separate books for savings business 
 and post the rate of interest allowed deposi- 
 tors and other regulations prescribed by the 
 directors. There is no statute in Kentucky 
 prohibiting the use or advertisement of the 
 word "savings" by a commercial bank. Vol. 
 9, p. 826, April, 1917. See S70. 
 
 Due diligence in examining statement 
 
 189. (S. Dak.) It is the duty of a country 
 
 bank receiving a daily statement from its city 
 correspondent to check up the statement, use 
 due diligence in examining it and to give due 
 notification of any errors. What constitutes 
 due diligence has not yet been specifically de- 
 fined by the courts. In the ligiit of a recent 
 New York decision in the Morgan case dis- 
 cussing the degree of diligence required by a 
 depositor, uj)on tiie return of a statement of 
 accounts and voucliers to a depositor, reason- 
 able diligence reciuires a very prompt exam- 
 ination of the acrount and rejwrting of errors, 
 failing which the bank will not be chargeable 
 in the event subsequent forged checks were 
 ])aid which would not have been paid had the 
 depositor exercised due diligence in the 
 matter of prompt examination and notifica- 
 tion. Vol. 7, p. 381, Dec, 1911. 
 
 Liability for statement of customer's 
 financial condition 
 
 190. (Cal.) Tiie holder of a check 
 makes inijuiry of drawee over the telephone 
 
 23
 
 191 
 
 DIGEST OF LEGAL OriNlOXS 
 
 as to drawer's account, and Ix'caiiso of defec- 
 tive wire the inquiry is understood to refer to 
 a diU'erent ])crson and answer is made that the 
 party lias no account, which leads to apprc- 
 liension of drawer whose cheek is good. Opin- 
 ion: The drawee is not liahlc to de])ositor in 
 action for slander, nor to inquiring bank, in 
 ease the latter is held liable in damages to the 
 drawer. Vol. 9, p. 498, Dec, 191G. 
 
 191. (Iowa.) A collection agency which 
 pulilislies in a "delinquent book'' tlie names 
 of debtors against whom it hold claims for 
 collection Avould be subject to action for libel, 
 and a bank furnishing to such agency the 
 names of certain of its debtors, with author- 
 ity and intention, if the debts are not paid, 
 that such names be so published, would be 
 likewise responsible. Vol. 9, p. 499, Dec, 
 1910. 
 
 192. (Iowa.) In response to an inquiry 
 by an Iowa bank concerning the financial 
 condition of its customer, a Georgia bank by 
 
 its officer returned words of general and 
 j)ointed praise and sjiecifically stated that tlie 
 customer "is worth apj)ro.\imately $'^0,000 
 and we are sure a note for $G00 on him is 
 j)erfectly good and collectible." These state- 
 ments, which proved false, were relied upon 
 to the injury of the Iowa bank in extending 
 credit to its customer. Opinion: The 
 Georgia bank was not liable for the unauthor- 
 ized act of its officer, unless the bank derived 
 some benefit, but the officer is personally 
 liable for damages in an action for deceit. 
 The authorities generally support the view 
 that the making of statements as to the finan- 
 cial responsibility of customers is no part of 
 the banking business and that a bank officer 
 has no authority to make such statements on 
 behalf of tlie bank and does not bind the bank 
 thereby, except that where the bank has pro- 
 fited by the false statement it will be held 
 liable, although such liability has been denied 
 in some cases. For a review of the law ap- 
 plicable to the recovery of damages for false 
 statements, see Vol. 6, p. 204, Sept., 1913. 
 
 BANK OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS 
 
 President of national bank as bond broker 
 
 193. (Ore.) A national bank president 
 acted as bond broker and in his personal ca- 
 pacity sold a bond to B and at the same time 
 verbally promised B that the bank would 
 take up the bond should B desire to cash it. B 
 seeks to compel the bank to take up the bond. 
 Opinion: A national bank has no power to act 
 as broker in stocks and bonds, and its presi- 
 dent who sells bonds in a personal capacity 
 has no authority to bind bank by promise that 
 bank will take up bonds thus sold. Vol. 4, 
 p. 427, Jan., 1912. 
 
 Bank as holder of director's note 
 
 194. (N. Dak.) A bank purchased a note 
 from one of its directors, who had knowledge 
 of an infirmity which would ordinarily render 
 the instrument unenforceable. Opinion: 
 The bank was an innocent purchaser and is 
 not chargeable with the knowledge possessed 
 by its director. The director's knowledge 
 was acquired outside his official duties and 
 was not attributable to the bank. Vol. 6, 
 p. 92, Aug., 1913. 
 
 Liability of bank for unauthorized acts of 
 cashier 
 
 See 14, 108, 169, ISO 
 
 195. (S. C.) The cashier of a bank al- 
 lowed its depositor an overdraft of $1,000. 
 To cover this amount the cashier accepted its 
 
 depositor's note, which was indorsed and 
 guaranteed by A, upon the cashier's statement 
 that A would not be held liable to the bank 
 upon his guaranty, and that the note was 
 only temporary to cover the amount during 
 the presence of the bank examiner. Opinion: 
 A is bomid by his guaranty. A bank cashier 
 has no authority by virtue of his office to 
 promise an indorser on a note to the bank that 
 he will not be liable upon his indorsement. 
 Vol. 3, p. 586, April, 1911. 
 
 196. (W. Va.) The cashier of a bank 
 without the authority, knowledge, or consent 
 of the board of directors, executed a bond to 
 indemnify a corporation against loss in issu- 
 ing a duplicate certificate of stock. The cashier 
 falsely represented that the original certificate 
 of stock had been held by the bank as collat- 
 eral and had been lost, but in fact, such 
 original had never been in the bank's posses- 
 sion. Opinion: The cashier had no inherent 
 power to execute such a bond, and his act 
 being without actual authority and not with- 
 in the scope of his implied powers did not 
 bind the bank. Vol. 2, p. 537, June, 1910. 
 
 Cashier of national bank need not be a 
 director 
 
 197. (Tex.) The cashier of a national 
 
 bank need not but may be a director. Vol. 7, 
 p. 776, April, 1915. 
 
 24
 
 BAXK OFFICERS AXD DIRECTORS 
 
 207 
 
 Duty to deface counterfeit money 
 
 198. (Iowa.) The Federal law requires 
 United States and national bank officers to 
 deface counterfeit notes, but makes no similar 
 requirement as to counterfeit coins. Some 
 clearing house rules require defacement of 
 both counterfeit coins and notes and such 
 would seem the proper procedure for all 
 banks, national and state. Vol. 9, p. 350, 
 Oct., 1916. 
 
 Interlocking directorates 
 
 199. (Minn.) The right of an officer 
 and director of a national bank with re- 
 sources exceeding five million dollars, located 
 in a city of over two hundred thousand inhab- 
 itants, to be an officer and director in any 
 number of non-member state banks, elsewhere 
 located and none having resources equaling 
 five million which right exists under the 
 Clayton Act, is not restricted by the provi- 
 sions of the Kern Act which are cumulative 
 and additionally permit such officer, upon 
 consent of the Federal Reserve Board, to be 
 in not more than two other banks not in sub- 
 stantial competition, from which, but for the 
 Kern proviso, he would be excluded. Vol. 
 9, p. 421, Nov., 1916. 
 
 200. (Minn.) A director in a state bank 
 which is a member of the Federal reserve 
 system in a city of over 200,000 population 
 cannot be director of a trust company and of 
 a capitalized savings bank located in the same 
 place. The director of a state member bank 
 cannot also be a director in a national bank 
 in said place. Vol. 8, p. 908, April, 1916. 
 
 201. (N. Y.) A director of a national 
 bank located in New York is eligible to be- 
 come trustee of a savings bank in the same 
 state, provided a majority of the board of 
 trustees of the savings bank is not composed 
 of directors of the national bank. Vol. 11, 
 p. 435, Feb., 1919. 
 
 Officer as attesting witness 
 
 202. (Mo.) An officer, not a stock- 
 holder, of the ])ayeo bank is coni])etent to sub- 
 scribe to the mark of the maker of an instru- 
 ment as attesting witness. Where the officer 
 is a stockholder it is unwise for the bank to 
 act upon the assumption of such competency. 
 Vol. 2, p. 22, July, 1909. 
 
 Overdraft by director 
 
 203. (N. J.) The director of a bank in 
 pursuance of liis oral order received from the 
 bank certificates of deposit which were in ex- 
 cess of his account. A Xew Jersey statute 
 makes it criminal for a director to overdraw 
 his account. Opinion: This transaction con- 
 stituted a violation of the statute, for the 
 director made an oral order which was vir- 
 tually a draft upon his account in excess of 
 his credit and received payment in the bank's 
 negotiai)le certificates of deposit, wliit-h were 
 the equivalent of money. Vol. 9, p. 347, 
 Oct., 1910. 
 
 Personal liability 
 
 See ]'.)-2, y.S.-j, ,SS6 
 
 204. (Me.) A bank officer or minor offi- 
 cial is not personally liable for a mistake in 
 ])aying a raised clieck in absence of gross or 
 inexcusable neglect. Vol. 1, j). 333, March, 
 1909. See 89. 
 
 205. (Miss.) By reason of the neglect 
 of certain directors of a ^lississippi l)ank in 
 holding regular examinations of the bank, the 
 stockholders suffer a loss. The directors dis- 
 claim liability because they were not paid for 
 their services. Opinion: The fact that the 
 bank directors received no comjiensation did 
 not relieve tliem from liabilitv for neglect of 
 duty. Vol. 6, p. 212, Sept., 1913. 
 
 206. (N. Y.) Bank teller, who in vio- 
 lation of instructions not to pay over $100, 
 ])ays check raised from $5 to $250 is person- 
 ally liable to the bank. Vol. 1, p. 205, Dec, 
 
 1008. 
 
 Power to borrow money for use of bank 
 
 207. (Wash.) it is n..w well settled 
 that the executive officers of national banks 
 may legitimately in the usual course of bank- 
 ing business, and without special authority 
 from their board of directors, rediscount their 
 own discounts or otherwise l)orrow money for 
 the bank's use. It is likely that such officers 
 would have like autliority to bind the bank 
 by an independent blanket guaranty of pay- 
 ment covering all the notes transferred, the 
 notes themselves being indorsed witiiout re- 
 course. Vol. 5. p. 593, March, 1913. 
 
 25
 
 208] 
 
 BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY 
 
 Fur Insolvency of Collecting Bank, see Collection, 410- 11. j 
 For Set Off, sec 1177-12:50 
 
 Certified checkholder not a preferred 
 creditor 
 
 208. (Wis.) The holders of checks cer- 
 tified by ;i national bank which becomes in- 
 solvent are not preferred over other creditors; 
 nor does the Wisconsin Banking Law give 
 such preference to the holders of certified 
 checks of insolvent state banks. Vol. 4, p. 
 152, June, 1912. 
 
 Claim to dividends 
 
 209. (Tenn.) A corporation pledged 
 $10,000 worth of bonds with a bank to secure 
 a loan from the bank of $7,000 as well "as 
 any other indebtedness." Later the bank 
 loaned the corporation an additional $3,000 
 to be paid out of the sale of its product in 
 preparation. Before the sale the corporation 
 became bankrupt, and the bank realized 
 $7,000 from the bonds. The bank claims 
 the unpaid balance against the estate. Opin- 
 ion: The bank is entitled to dividends on the 
 unpaid balance, over and above the amount 
 realized upon the security. Vol. 1, p. 266, 
 Jan., 1909. 
 
 Depositaries for estates in bankruptcy 
 
 210. (N. C.) National Bankruptcy Law 
 does not restrict deposits of money of bank- 
 rupt estates to national banks and the courts 
 of bankruptcy may designate, by order, state 
 banks as depositories. Vol. 3, p. 466, Feb., 
 1911. 
 
 Discharge as bar to unlisted claim 
 
 211. (Miss.) A bankrupt owing a 
 bank on a claim intentionally omitted to list 
 the bank as a creditor in his schedules, be- 
 cause he intended to pay the claim. He ob- 
 tained his discharge and now refuses to pay 
 the claim. Opinion: The bank can recover 
 the full amount of its claim against the bank- 
 rupt, provided it had no notice or knowledge 
 of the bankruptcy proceedings prior to the 
 discharge. Vol. 3, p. 521, March, 1911. 
 
 Dividend check of failed national bank 
 
 212. (Fla.) A bank acquired by in- 
 dorsement a dividend check drawn by a na- 
 tional bank payable to one of its stockholders. 
 Before the check was presented the national 
 bank failed, and the receiver takes the posi- 
 tion that the claim on the dividend check 
 must be made by the original stockholder- 
 
 payee, and ]io assignment of the check can 
 be recognized because such stockholder may 
 be liable to assessment on his stock. The bank 
 holding the check seeks to file a proof of claim. 
 Opinion: The indorsee for value of the check, 
 acquiring the same before the failure of the 
 bank, has a right to prove its claim thereon 
 against the receiver free from counterclaim 
 by the receiver against the original payee for 
 assessment on stock. The position taken by 
 the receiver ignores the fact that such divi- 
 dend check is a negotiable instrument. If 
 the receiver disallows the claim the bank's 
 remedy is by action to establish claim by 
 judgment. Vol. 10, p. 310, Oct., 1917. 
 
 Liens within four months of bankruptcy 
 See 218 
 
 213. (Idaho.) A bank received a num- 
 ber of notes as collateral upon a loan due 
 December 1, 1910. The notes were collected 
 and applied on the indebtedness on January 
 5, 1911. The borrower became a bankrupt 
 April 28, 1911. Opinion: The assignment 
 of the notes as collateral more than four 
 months prior to the bankruptcy was not a 
 preference, although the notes were not col- 
 lected until within the four months. Vol. 
 4, p. 220, Oct., 1911. 
 
 214. (N. J.) A judgment obtained more 
 than four months prior to the filing of a pe- 
 tition in bankruptcy is a valid and enforce- 
 able lien against the bankrupt's estate, but 
 when obtained within four months, it is void 
 where the debtor is adjudged bankrupt. Vol. 
 10, p. 783, May, 1918. 
 
 Payment of check on insolvent bank 
 
 215. (Kan.) A check upon A bank is 
 caslied by B bank and immediately charged 
 to the former's account prior to forwarding 
 it to A bank, pursuant to an agreement be- 
 tween both banks. A bank became insolvent 
 after its account was charged but before it re- 
 ceived the item. Opinion: Bank B will not 
 be permitted to maintain the charge to the 
 account of Bank A, against the receiver of the 
 latter. Vol. 7, p. 899, :May, 1915. 
 
 Innocent purchaser of negotiable paper 
 transferred by bankrupt 
 
 216. (111.) A bankrupt's estate, from 
 the date of filing of petition against him, 
 being in custody of the court, the bankrupt 
 
 26
 
 BANK STOCK AND STOCKHOLDERS 
 
 222 
 
 without power to thereafter transfer same 
 and such filing being notice to all the world 
 that the bankrupt's power of disposal is at an 
 end, it has been held that the innocent pur- 
 chaser of negotiable paper, transferred by 
 the bankrupt after filing of the petition is 
 not a bona fide holder, but is charged with 
 constructive notice. But this rule is not 
 firmly established, and in view of the inequity 
 and impolicy of charging innocent purchasers 
 of negotiable paper with constructive notice 
 in such cases, it is fair to assume that future 
 courts will create an exception of innocent 
 purchasers of negotiable paper from the doc- 
 trine of constructive notice because of the 
 filing of a petition in bankruptcy against a 
 prior transferor, as has already been done in 
 protection of a bank which has innocently 
 paid its customer's check in ignorance of 
 prior filing of petition in bankruptcy against 
 such customer. Vol. 11, p. 211, Oct., 1918. 
 
 Preference not created where collateral 
 renewed 
 
 217. (Ala.) A note secured by a real 
 estate mortgage was past due, although part 
 payment had been made by a sale of a part of 
 the mortgaged premises. The mortgagee de- 
 sires a new note, secured not only by a new 
 mortgage on the premises covered by tlie old 
 mortgage, but also by additional new security. 
 In case of the mortgagor's bankruptcy with- 
 in four months of the renewal the mort- 
 gagee questions the right of the creditors to 
 tlie mortgaged property. Opinion: Substi- 
 tution of new mortgage within four months 
 
 on same property covered by old mortgage 
 would not be a preference, but taking of ad- 
 ditional security would be a preference to 
 extent of such securitv. Vol. 5, p. 247, Oct., 
 1912. 
 
 218. (Okla.) More than four months 
 prior to the liankruptcy of a firm a bank 
 loaned money to said firm on pledge of col- 
 lateral. Within the four months the bank 
 released the collateral on the promise of the 
 firm to substitute farmers' notes later. The 
 farmers' notes were afterwards substituted 
 for most of the loan and the balance was paid 
 by check. A month later the firm was forced 
 into bankruptcy, but the bank ha<l had no rea- 
 son to believe that the firm was not entirely 
 solvent. The question was raised whether the 
 settlement of the loan by the firm by sub- 
 stituted collateral and check constituted a 
 preference. Opinion: While a substitution 
 of new collateral within the four months in 
 exchange for collateral of equal value relin- 
 quished at the same time would not be a pre- 
 ference, it is doubtful whether it would be 
 so held where new collateral was afterwards 
 substituted for most of the loan pursuant to 
 a prior promise, the balance l)eing paid bv 
 check. Vol. 4, p. 220, Oct., 1911. 
 
 Propery inherited after adjudication 
 
 219. (N. Y.) Where a bankrupt inherits 
 property after the adjudication of his bank- 
 ruptcy, the creditors have no claim against 
 such after acquired propcrtv. Vol. 4, p. 557, 
 March, 1912. 
 
 BANK STOCK AND STOCKHOLDERS 
 
 Liability of transferor to assessment 
 
 220. (N. Dak.) A sold B in good faith 
 ten shares of his stock in a national bank. 
 Within one year after the sale the bank 
 failed. The question was raised whether A 
 was subject to liability. Opinion: If the 
 transfer was made in good faith and was 
 properly registered on the books, the trans- 
 feror was not liable to assessment when the 
 bank subsequently failed, even thougli the 
 l)ank was insolvent at the time of the trans- 
 fer. Vol. 4, p. 96, Aug., 1911. 
 
 Dividends 
 See 432, 433 
 
 221. (Neb.) After a dividend was de- 
 clared and became payable, the stock was 
 
 transferred to a liolder without any agree- 
 ment as to the dividend. Opinion : The divi- 
 dend belongs to the owner of the stock at the 
 time it was declared and does not pass with 
 a sul)sequent transfer of the stock unless by 
 express contract. Vol. 5. p. 2»s July, 1912. 
 
 Double liability 
 See 1206 
 
 222. (Miss.) A became the owner of 
 certain fully ]>aiil non-assessable stock issued 
 by a Mississip{)i bank at a time when the law 
 provided for no double liability of stork- 
 holders. Under the Mississippi Banking 
 Act of March, 1914, .V has been assessed 
 equal to the par value of his stock. Opinion: 
 A's stock is subject to the assessment. Al- 
 though the law under which the bank was or- 
 
 27
 
 223 
 
 DIGEST OF TJOriAL OPIN'IOXS 
 
 gaiiized provides no double liiil)ility of stock- 
 holders, the k'^nslature may amend the law 
 and create such liability where the state con- 
 stitution, as in i\Iississipi)i, reserves power to 
 the legislature to amend the law of incor- 
 poration. Vol. 9, p. 145, Aug., I'JIG. 
 
 223. (N. J.) Section 23 of the Federal 
 lieserve Act provides in part: "The stock- 
 holders of every national banking association 
 shall be held individually responsible for all 
 contracts, debts and engagements of such 
 association, each to the amount of his stock 
 therein, at the par value thereof in addition 
 to the amount invested in such stock." The 
 question is raised as to the meaning of the 
 underscored ])hrase; whether it means the 
 price that is paid for the stock in the open 
 market. Opinion: In event of failure, stock- 
 holder loses the amount invested in the stock 
 and in addition is liable for debts, pro rata 
 with other stockholders, up to the amount 
 of the par value of his stock. If the stock- 
 holder has bought stock in an open market 
 above par and thereafter the national bank 
 goes into the hands of a receiver, he loses the 
 amount invested in such stock, namely, the 
 market price paid for it, and is also liable to 
 assessment to the extent of the amount of his 
 stock at the par value thereof. Vol. 11, p. 
 402, March, 1919. 
 
 224. (Utah.) A national bank held 
 stock of the B national bank as security for 
 a loan and bid in the stock, having it trans- 
 ferred to its own name upon the books of the 
 B bank. Thereafter B bank failed and 
 A bank is charged with payment of the stat- 
 utory assessment of 100 ])er cent. Opinion: 
 The A bank is liable for the assessment. The 
 fact that it became owner of the stock by 
 necessity and not by choice would not change 
 the result. Vol. 11, p. 438, Feb., 1919. 
 
 Increase of national bank stock 
 
 225. (Del.) Where stock of national 
 bank is increased by the vote of necessary 
 number of shareholders, and resolution 
 authorizing increase fixes premium at which 
 new stock shall be sold. Opinion: The 
 stockholder not participating or voting for 
 increase has right to purchase his proportion 
 of new shares at par. Vol. 5, p. 754, May, 
 1913. 
 
 Inspection of books and records 
 
 See 164 ct scj 
 
 226. (Pa.) A stockholder in a national 
 bank is entitled to inspect the books of the 
 corporation. In some states this right is ab- 
 
 solute, while in other states such as Pennsyl- 
 vania the law conditions the enforcement of 
 the right upon the proper motive of the stock- 
 holder. Vol. 7, ]). 090, March, 1915. 
 
 227. (Pa.) Opinion expressed that a 
 depositor as distinguished from a stockholder 
 has no such interest in the Ijank as would 
 give him the right to inspect its books and 
 records. The contrary statement in two 
 early cases that on all proper occasions a de- 
 ])ositor has a right to inspect the books of 
 the bank is a mere expression of opinion, not 
 having the force of law. If any right of in- 
 spection exists in the depositor, it would at 
 most be confined to his particular account 
 and could not extend to the accounts of other 
 customers or to the general business of the 
 institution. Vol. 7, p. 578, Feb., 1915. 
 
 Lien for stockholder's indebtedness 
 
 228. (Ark.) The stockholder of an Ar- 
 kansas bank owed his bank on an overdraft 
 but had transferred to another his stock, 
 upon which the bank claimed a statutory lien. 
 After the stockholder died the bank trans- 
 ferred the stock to the purchaser but applied 
 part of the dividends to payment of the over- 
 draft and paid the balance of the dividends to 
 the decedent's administrator. Opinion: By 
 statute in Arkansas, a bank has a lien on the 
 stock and dividends of its stockholder for an 
 indebtedness to the bank, superior to the 
 claim of the transferee. The transferee, 
 however, can recover from the bank the bal- 
 ance of dividends paid to the administrator 
 in view of the due notice to the bank of the 
 transfer of the stock. Vol. 5, p. 597, March, 
 1913. See 237, 238. 
 
 229. (Kan.) The Kansas Banking 
 Law protects a bank against a transfer of 
 bank stock so long as the registered holder is 
 indebted to the bank, and provides that all 
 dividends, interest or profit shall be retained 
 by the bank and applied to the debt. The 
 bank cannot sell the stock, unless authorized 
 bv a court order granted in a proper case. 
 Vol. 5, p. 518, Feb^, 1913. 
 
 230. (Md.) The stockholder of a na- 
 tional bank owed the bank on several notes 
 which matured after his death. The bank 
 questions its right to claim a lien on its stock 
 for the indebtedness or to refuse to transfer 
 its stock to another upon the sale by the ex- 
 ecutor. Opinion: The national bank has no 
 lien and cannot refuse to transfer the stock 
 should the executor see fit to sell it to an- 
 other. Vol. 6, p. 100, Aug., 1913. 
 
 28
 
 BANK STOCK AND STOCKHOLDERS 
 
 [239 
 
 231. (Mich.) A national bank has no 
 lien on its stock for the indebtedness of its 
 stockholder. Where such stock is in the 
 hands of a pledgee as security for a loan it is 
 not subject to any claim of lien by the issuing 
 bank. Vol. 7, p. 306, Nov., 1914. 
 
 232. (Mo.) A stockholder of a national 
 bank borrows money of the bank without se- 
 curity. When the note falls due, he fails to 
 pay it. The bank asserts a lien on his stock 
 for the indebtedness. Opinion: A national 
 bank has no lien on its stock for the indebt- 
 edness of a stockholder and cannot refuse to 
 transfer his stock until the debt is paid. But 
 it would seem that the national bank act 
 would not prevent the bank attaching the 
 shares for his indebtedness, where in posses- 
 sion of the stockholder at the time of the at- 
 tachment. Vol. 3, p. 401, Jan., 1911. 
 
 233. (Ohio.) By statute in Ohio, a bank 
 has a lien on the stock owned by its debtors 
 and may refuse to transfer the same mitil 
 the indebtedness is satisfied. For Ohio de- 
 cisions cited see Vol. 5, p. 753, May, 1913. 
 
 234. (N. Y.) The stockholder of a state 
 bank in New York pledged his stock to a na- 
 tional bank as collateral for a loan. The 
 stockholder was indebted to his own bank. 
 The national bank claimed the right to sell 
 the stock to secure themselves, while the state 
 bank claimed a prior lien on the stock pur- 
 suant to a provision of its by-law giving it a 
 secret lien. Opinion: The state bank has no 
 lien on its stock and cannot refuse to transfer 
 it. Section 51 of the Stock Corporation 
 Law of New York gives a bank or other cor- 
 poration a lien on its stock or right to refuse 
 to transfer while the stockholder is in- 
 debted to the bank, provided a copy of the 
 section is printed on the certificate — where 
 not so printed, a lien for indebtedness created 
 by the by-law is not effectual against a pur- 
 chaser of the stock for value without notice. 
 Vol. 6, p. 370, Nov., 1913. 
 
 235. (N. Y.) A bank holds its stock- 
 holder's note of $1,000. He has not paid his 
 indebtedness and claims he has sold his cer- 
 tificate of stock to a third person. The bank 
 refused to transfer the stock until the note 
 was paid. The certificate contains no pro- 
 vision claiming a lien for the indebtedness of 
 the stockholder. Opinion: Whore stock- 
 holder indebted to state liank in New York 
 has assigned his stock, bank may refuse trans- 
 fer to assignee until stockholder's indebted- 
 ness is paid, provided section of statute de- 
 
 claring lien is printed on certificate; other- 
 wise not. Vol. 10, p. 530, Jan., 1918. 
 
 236. (Pa.) A borrower pledged as col- 
 lateral for a loan the stock of a national and 
 of a state bank. The stockholder is indebted 
 to the banks which claim a prior lien. Opin- 
 ion: A national bank has no lien on the stock 
 for the indebtedness of its stockholder, and in 
 Pennsylvania there is a statutory prohibition 
 (Act of 1901) of a lien by state banks. The 
 Uniform Stock Transfer Act passed in Penn- 
 sylvania in 1911 provides that no corporation 
 shall have a lien upon its shares or restrict 
 their transfer unless notice is imprinted on 
 the certificate. It is doubtful if this would 
 be construed as repealing the Act of 1901 
 prohibiting banks from acquiring liens upon 
 their stock. Vol. 8. p. 14G, Aug., 1915. 
 
 Right to dividends on pledged stock 
 See 228 
 
 237. (Ga.) A loaned B $1,000 on 50 
 shares of the capital stock of X Company, 
 due notice of the pledge having been given to 
 the company. Dividends have accrued on the 
 stock and are due and payable. Opinion: 
 Dividends accruing on the pledged stock be- 
 long to the pledgee, and the company after 
 notice is liable to the pledgee therefor. If 
 the company went into liquidation, A would 
 be entitled to liquidation dividends. Vol. 5, 
 p. 6G7, April, 1913. 
 
 238. (W. Va.) A bank held as collater- 
 al certain stocks of a company indebted to 
 the bank, upon which a dividend was de- 
 clared. After the dividend was due and be- 
 fore received by the bank, the funds of the 
 pledgor with the company were attached by 
 one of his creditors. Opinion: The bank 
 had the right as unrecorded pledgee of the 
 stock to the dividends declared thereon, as 
 against an attaching creditor of the pledgor. 
 Vol. 5, p. 520, Feb., 1913. 
 
 Stock issued in name of partnership 
 
 239. (N. J.) Jolni Smith and Son, a 
 partncrshiji, have l)Ought bank stock and re- 
 quest that the certificate be issued under the 
 firm name. The bank is uncertain as to 
 whetber one of the firm under such issue 
 could qualify to act as a director of the bank. 
 Opinion: A certificate of bank stock may be 
 issued to a firm in the firm name and a di- 
 rector's qualification shares may be held by 
 tlie partnership of which he is a member. 
 Where a certificate of stock is issued in the 
 name of a partnership, a valid transfer there- 
 
 29
 
 240] 
 
 DIGEST OF LEGAL OPINIONS 
 
 of may 1)0 cxocutocl by any nionibor of tlie 
 firm who is authorized to 8ip:n tlie firm name. 
 Vol. 10. ]K TIC, April, 1!H8. 
 
 Transfer of stock 
 
 Rc<> 220, Li.it!, KiM, KH, i:i:t!) ct scq 
 
 240. (Ga.) A, tlic owner of a ctTiificatc 
 of stock in a Georgia bank, pledged tlie same 
 as security for a loan from B, who held his 
 note for the amount. Afterwards the pledg- 
 or obtained a new certificate of stock from the 
 bank without returning the original certifi- 
 cate. A defaults on his note and B tenders 
 the original certificate to tlie bank, requesting 
 the issue of a new certificate of stock. The 
 bank refused on the ground that another cer- 
 tificate had been issued to the original stock- 
 holder. Oinnion: In issuing a new certifi- 
 cate without surrender of the original, the 
 bank took the risk of the original certificate 
 being outstanding in the hands of a bona fide 
 holder. The pledgee is entitled to damages 
 against the bank for such refusal, being the 
 amount of his loan and interest unless he has 
 bought the stock in, in which case the meas- 
 ure of damages is the value of the stock at 
 the time of refusal to transfer. Vol. 11, 
 p. 393, Jan., 1919. 
 
 24L (Va.) A Virginia bank purchased 
 at a private sale ten shares of stock of an Ar- 
 kansas bank which it had held as security 
 for a loan to a stockholder of the latter bank. 
 
 The Arkansas bank refused to transfer the 
 stock thus sold, claiming that under the Ar- 
 kansas statute the pledged stock was not 
 registered in the county clerk's office as re- 
 (juired by law. Opinion: Notwithstanding 
 ])rovisions of Arkansas statutes that upon 
 transfer of stock a certificate of transfer must 
 be deposited w'ith county clerk, it has been 
 decided that a pledge of stock is valid without 
 such deposit and the statute is only applicable 
 to transfers by the stockholder bv way of sale. 
 Vol. 6, p. 213, Sept., 1!n .3. 
 
 Voting 
 See 225, 439, 440 
 
 242. (Iowa.) The pledgor of certain 
 stock in a national bank became bankrupt. 
 The trustee in bankruptcy claimed the right 
 to vote the stock at the stockholders meeting. 
 Opinion: The trustee had the right to vote 
 the stock in the hands of the pledgee of the 
 bankrupt, where the stock had not been trans- 
 ferred to the pledgee on the books of the 
 bank. Vol. 5, p. 378, Dec, 1912. 
 
 243. (N. Y.) It is a general rule of law 
 that an executor has the right to vote with 
 respect to the stock standing on the corpor- 
 ate books in the name of the testator on ex- 
 hibiting an exemplified copy of his letters 
 testamentary. There is nothing in the na- 
 tional bank act which restricts this right with 
 respect to stock in a national bank. Vol. 7, 
 p. 996, June, 1915. 
 
 BILLS OF LADING 
 
 For Attachment of Proceeds of B/L Draft, see 136 et seq; for Collection of B,^L Draft, see 
 
 367 et seq 
 
 Acceptor's liability on b /I draft 
 
 244. (Miss.) The drawee of a draft 
 with an attached bill of lading representing 
 cotton accepted the draft before checking the 
 invoice. Before the expiration of the three 
 days of grace, the drawee discovered an error 
 in the invoice and refused payment of the 
 draft at maturity, whereupon the instrument 
 was protested. Opinion: Under the Missis- 
 sippi law (the Anti-Commercial statute) the 
 acceptor of. the draft is not liable to a bona 
 fide holder where it has a good defense 
 against the drawer. Vol. 4, p. 613, April, 
 1912. 
 
 Note: Under tlie Negotiable Instruments Act, 
 which became a law in Mississippi in 1916, the 
 acceptor would be liable. 
 
 Recovery by drawee of money paid on 
 non-negotiable b 1 draft 
 
 245. (Mich.) A draft was drawn pay- 
 able "on arrival"' and provided that the "paid 
 freight bill will be accepted as part payment." 
 The drawer cashed the draft with the bill of 
 lading attached at the bank, which forwarded 
 the instrument for collection. The drawee 
 paid the draft upon surrender of the bill of 
 lading, but afterwards repudiated the trans- 
 action and recovered the money from the col- 
 lecting bank, claiming that the goods were 
 bought on sample from the drawer and were 
 not as represented. Opinion: The draft not 
 being an unconditional order to pay money 
 was not negotiable and the bank which pur- 
 chased the draft was liable to refund where it 
 
 30
 
 BILLS OF LADING 
 
 253 
 
 was shown that there was failure of consider- 
 ation for the draft. Vol. 5, p. 519, Feb., 
 1913. 
 
 Rights of attaching creditor of shipper 
 
 See 13G et scq 
 
 246. (Cal.) A bank discounted and be- 
 came owner of a draft with an attached order 
 bill of lading representing prunes. The 
 draft was paid by the consignee of the goods, 
 but wliile the funds were in the hands of the 
 collecting bank they were attached by a cred- 
 itor of the shipper. Opinion: The purchas- 
 ing bank has a right to the proceeds in the 
 hands of the collecting bank superior to that 
 of the attaching creditor. Vol. 4, p. 614, 
 April, 1912. 
 
 247. (Me.) Where goods, shipped under 
 an order bill of lading, are attached by a 
 creditor of the shipper, the courts quite gen- 
 erally hold that a bank to whom the bill has 
 been pledged for value as security for ad- 
 vances has a right to the property superior 
 to that of an attaching creditor. Vol. 1, 
 p. 203, Dec, 1908. 
 
 248. (N. Y.) A bank discounted a 
 shipper's draft with an accompanying bill of 
 lading representing hay, and credited the 
 shipper with the amount. The drawee re- 
 fused to pay the draft and attached the goods 
 because of an alleged prior indebtedness of 
 the shipper to him. Opinion: The bank was 
 not simply collecting agent of the shipper but 
 acquired special title to the hay superior to 
 that of an attaching creditor of the shipper, 
 even though the credit was not checked out. 
 Vol. 3, p. 11, July, 1910. 
 
 249. (N. Y.) It is the undoubted rule 
 of law that where a bank purchases or makes 
 advances upon a draft, to which is attached 
 a bill of lading as security, the purchasing 
 bank takes a right to the property su])eri()r 
 to that of an attaching creditor. Vol. 3, p. 
 11, July, 1910. 
 
 Bank's liability for violation of 
 instructions 
 
 250. (La.) A bank held a bill of lading 
 to be delivered to the consignee after he had 
 signed an attached agreement to buy a soda 
 fountain. In violation of instructions from 
 its principal, the bank as agent delivered the 
 bill of lading without procuring the signature 
 to the agreement. Opinion: The bank was 
 liable to its principal for the damages suffered 
 by reason of the violation of instructions, but 
 if the principal was not rightfully entitled 
 
 to have the agreement signed as a condition 
 of delivery of the bill of lading and the im- 
 posing of such condition was wrongful or 
 fraudulent, the loss of opportunity on the 
 part of the principal to drive an unconscion- 
 able bargain would not be legitimate actual 
 damage recoverable from the agent bank. 
 A^ol. 5, p. 101, Aug., 1912. See 3G8. 
 
 Liability for issuing bill of lading without 
 receipt of goods 
 
 251. (111.) A bank purchased and col- 
 lected of the drawee a bill of lading draft, 
 given for goods to be shipped on the Wabash 
 railroad. The goods were never delivered 
 to the railroad and the consignors failed. 
 The drawee sued the purchasing bank for 
 money paid under a mistake of fact. Opin- 
 ion: The purchasing bank was not liable to 
 the drawee as warrantor of the accompany- 
 ing bill of lading; but the drawee's remedy, 
 if any, was against the railroad for issuing 
 an accommodation bill of lading without the 
 receipt of the goods. Vol. 2, p. 3 To, March, 
 1910. 
 
 Consignor cannot change routing 
 
 252. (N. Y.) The consignor of goods 
 having transferred an order bill of lading as 
 security to a bank, has no right without the 
 bank's consent to have the shipment di- 
 verted en route, and it' the railroad obeys his 
 instructions it would be liable in damages to 
 the bank. In the case of a shipment from 
 California to New York, if the bank sued 
 the railroad for damages in converting and 
 injuring the property, the law of the state 
 where the injury occurred would govern ; but 
 if the bank sued the railroad for breach of 
 contract, the law of the state where the con- 
 tract was made would govern. Vol. 3, p. 
 335, Dec, 1910. 
 
 Shipper's indorsement supplied by collect- 
 ing bank 
 
 253. (Ala.) The shipper's indorsement 
 on an "urder notify'' bill of lading was sup- 
 plied by a collecting bank in order to facili- 
 tate the payment of the attached draft and 
 the delivery of the goods to the consignee. 
 Opinion: The collecting bank would incur 
 no resjionsibility in supplying the indorse- 
 ment where the transaction was bona fide 
 and the bill of lading represented the actual 
 goods, but might incur responsibility in the 
 event of a forged or false bill of lading. Vol. 
 5, p. 313, Nov., 1912. 
 
 31
 
 254 
 
 DIGEST OF LEGAi. OPINIONS 
 
 Effect of absence of shipper's signature 
 
 254. (N. J.) 'I'lic ro(|iiiR'nu'iit of the 
 siffiiatui'c (if tlu" sliii)i)('r, wlicre a l)lank is 
 provided on the uniionn bills, is not a re- 
 (luircnuMit of law but a rcconmiondation of 
 the Iiitorslato Commerce Commission. It is 
 a matter of practice, not of law, and the ab- 
 sence of tiie shipper's signature does not ren- 
 der the document invalid. Vol. 2, p. 37G, 
 March, 1910. 
 
 Uniform Bill of Lading Act relative to 
 purchase and collection 
 
 255. (N. Y.) Tender Sections 37 and 39 
 of the Pomcrene bill (embodying the main 
 features of the Uniform Bills of Lading Act), 
 which has passed the United States Senate 
 and is pending in the House 
 
 1. Where a bank purchases a draft witli 
 an order bill of lading attached and assigns 
 it with indorsement to a European bank for 
 value, the bank guarantees the genuineness 
 of the bill to the purchaser but 
 
 2. Where a bank forwards the draft with 
 the attached bill of lading for collection from 
 the drawee, the bank does not warrant the 
 genuineness of the bill of lading to the payor. 
 Vol. 5, p. 246, Nov., 1912. 
 
 Note: The above bill became a law August 29, 
 1916, and took effect January 1, 1917. In the law 
 as passed the sections above referred to are 
 numbered .34 and 36 respectively. 
 
 Rights of payor of draft where goods not 
 
 according to contract 
 
 See 252 
 
 256. (Minn.) A bank purchased a num- 
 ber of drafts covering cars of hay with order 
 bills of lading attached and forwarded the 
 same to another bank for collection. The 
 drawee paid the drafts but later attached the 
 funds in the hands of the collecting bank, be- 
 cause the goods were not according to the 
 contract. Opinion: The purchasing bank 
 had a right to the proceeds in the hands of 
 the collecting bank as against the drawee. 
 Vol. 5, p. 518, Feb., 1913. 
 
 257. (Colo.) A bank received payment 
 of a draft with bill of lading attacTied for 
 consignment of goods, in payment of pur- 
 chase price. It later develops that the goods 
 were not according to contract and the ques- 
 tion is raised as to whether the receiving bank 
 is liable as an agent of the seller guaranteeing 
 performance of the contract, unless it dis- 
 claims such warrantor liability by indorse- 
 ment on the bill of lading. Opinion: The 
 
 almost universal judicial rule in this country, 
 now enacted in statutory form as to inter- 
 state bills by Section 3(> of the Federal Bill 
 of Lading Act is that a bank which purchases 
 a draft witii bill of lading attached is not re- 
 sponsible to the drawee who pays the draft 
 for the genuineness of the bill or the quan- 
 tity or quality of the goods therein described. 
 There is no necessity of stamping on the 
 draft an express disclaimer of such warrantor 
 lial)ility except ])ossibly in the case of intra- 
 state bills of lading in Mississippi. Vol. 11, 
 p. 278, Nov., 191S. 
 
 258. (Ga.) A purchasing bank placed a 
 rubber stamp indorsement on a draft with a 
 bill of lading attached, whereby it dis- 
 claimed liability as warrantor of the quan- 
 tity, quality, and delivery of the goods 
 affected. The bank questions the effect of 
 such disclaimer. Opinion: Xo decision by a 
 court of last resort has been rendered testing 
 the effect of such disclaimer. It is almost 
 the universal rule that the bank does not 
 incur this warrantor liability and it would 
 probably be held that the written disclaimer 
 would be surplusage and would not give a 
 bank any more protection than it already 
 had. Vol. 1, p. 142, Oct., 1908. 
 
 259. (Mich.) A bank indorses a draft 
 with a bill of lading attached, using its 
 rubber stamp as follows: "By indorsing this 
 draft or receiving a payment thereon we do 
 not warrant the genuineness of the bill of 
 lading attached, nor the quantity or quality 
 of the goods therein. 
 
 Bank 
 
 Michigan." 
 
 The bank asks whether this disclaimer of 
 warrantor liability invalidates its title to the 
 goods covered by the bill of lading. Opin- 
 ion: Bank which purchases and collects draft 
 to which bill of lading is attached as security 
 holds a special title to the goods as pledgee 
 which is divested upon payment of the draft, 
 but does not warrant the quantity or qual- 
 ity of the goods therein described. A dis- 
 claimer of such warrantor liability, stamped 
 upon a bill of lading draft is unnecessary, 
 except probably in case of drafts drawn on 
 Mississippi, where the warrantor doctrine 
 still prevails; but if such disclaimer stamp is 
 indorsed upon the draft, opinion expressed 
 that it would not weaken the bank's special 
 title in the security. Vol. 10, p. 713, April, 
 1918. 
 
 260. (Ohio.) It is almost universally 
 held that a bank which purchases a draft 
 with a bill of lading attached does not war- 
 
 32
 
 BRAXCH BANKS 
 
 268 
 
 rant to the drawee who pays the draft the 
 quantity and quality of the goods. An e;s- 
 press disclaimer by the bank of such liability, 
 where it is thought necessary to guard against 
 
 a possible liability, should be placed on the 
 draft rather than on the bill of lading and 
 such stipulation would probably be binding 
 on the drawee. Vol. 3, p. 277, Nov., 1910. 
 
 BRANCH BANKS 
 
 Presentment and payment of checks 
 
 261. (Ala.) The drawer of a check on 
 his deposit in a brancli bank can stop pay- 
 ment thereof after the check has been pur- 
 chased by the parent bank but before it has 
 been presented at the branch bank, and the 
 parent bank is not a payor of the check but 
 a holder in due course, entitled to enforce 
 payment against the drawer and prior in- 
 dorsers. Vol. 9, p. 905, May, 1917. 
 
 262. (Ga.) In the city of C, there is 
 the "Bank of C" and also a branch located in 
 a different part of the cit}^ known as the 
 "Bank of C Home Savings Branch." A 
 check drawn on the branch was presented for 
 payment at the parent bank. Opinion: The 
 presentment of the check was not sufficient 
 and therefore would be no basis for a pro- 
 test. In case of a check dra^\^l on the parent 
 bank and presented at that bank where pay- 
 ment was refused although the drawer had 
 all his funds in the branch, the bank would 
 not be responsible for damages. While the 
 branches of a bank are agencies and not dis- 
 tinct banks, the courts recognize that for cer- 
 tain purposes, including the presentment and 
 payment of checks, the dilferent branches are 
 to be regarded as distinct. Vol. 4, p. 552, 
 March, 1912. 
 
 263. (S. C.) A clieck drawn by a cus- 
 tomer of a brancli bank upon sucli l)ranch 
 bank against funds deposited therein is pay- 
 
 able only by the branch upon which drawn 
 and not by the parent bank. Presentment 
 at the parent bank would not be sufficient 
 presentment and would not justify a pro- 
 test. Vol. 7, p. 169, Sept., 1914. 
 
 Presentment and payment of note 
 
 264. (Mich.) A note for $500 was made 
 payable at a designated branch office of a 
 bank. The notary presented the note at the 
 main office and the item was protested for 
 non-payment. The indorser claims non-lia- 
 bility. Opinion: Presentment for payment 
 at the main office of the bank was not suffi- 
 cient to hold the indorser. Vol. 4, p. 305, 
 Nov., 1911. 
 
 Right to establish branches 
 
 265. (Mass.) Under the present Fed- 
 eral law, national banks are not permitted 
 to establish branches, either in or outside of 
 the city in which they are located. Under 
 the ^lassachusetts law a savings bank can es- 
 tablish branches for deposit only within a 
 certain area and under certain restrictions. 
 A'ol. 8, p. 1102, June, 191G. 
 
 XoTE: Section 25 of the Federal Reserve Act 
 authorizes national banks liaviiii,' cajiilal of 
 .51. 0(10, 000 or more, Jipon j)ornii-;si()ii <if Federal 
 Reserve Board, to establisli hrauelies in foreign 
 eouiitries or dependencies or insular possessions 
 of the United States. 
 
 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 
 
 Demand and time certificates dis- 
 tinguished 
 
 See 4 it 7 
 
 266. (Colo.) The provision printed on 
 the back of a certificate of deposit payal)le on 
 return that "this certificate is payable twelve 
 months after date" is part of the terms of the 
 contract on tlio face so that the instrument is 
 not a demand but a time certificate of de- 
 posit. A'ol. 7, p. 894, May, 1915. 
 
 267. (Mo.) The provision in a certi- 
 ficate of deposit payable on return properly 
 
 indorsed for "interest at the rate of 4 per 
 cent, per annum if \vit twelve months" does 
 not prevent earlier presentment if the holder 
 chooses to waive interest. Vol. 3, p. 584, 
 April. 1!)11. 
 
 268. (Okla.) Where a certificate of de- 
 posit provides that the money has been de- 
 posited payable in one year from date at 
 4 per cent, interest, the certificate is not due 
 until the expiration of twelve months from 
 date, and the holder cannot compel payment 
 before maturity, although payment of inter- 
 est is waived. Vol. 3, p. 733, June, 1911. 
 
 33
 
 269 
 
 1)1 C; EST OF LEGAL OPINIONS 
 
 Presentment after death of payee 
 
 269. (Mich.) Wlierc a no^^otiiible cor- 
 tilieate ol" deposit properly indorsed was ])re- 
 s(Mil(>d for })a}meiit at a l)ank by a bona fide 
 liolder after tbo payee's death. Opinion: 
 that the l)ank should pay such certideate. 
 The case dilfers from that of a clieck, in 
 which the death of the drawer revokes the 
 authority of the bank to pay, in the absence 
 of statute expressly authorizing post mortem 
 ])ayment. A'ol. -i/p. G85, May, 1913. 
 
 270. (Miss.) A bank should pay a ne- 
 gotiable certificate of deposit to a bona fide 
 indorsee of the payee, although not presented 
 until after the pavce's death. Vol. G, p. 274, 
 Oct., WU. 
 
 Payable "in current funds" 
 
 See 125 
 
 271. (Ind.) A certificate of deposit pay- 
 able '"in current funds" is not negotiable in 
 Indiana. The decisions of other states con- 
 flict upon this proposition. Vol. 3, p. 468, 
 Feb., 1911. 
 
 272. (Minn.) The original owner of a 
 certificate of deposit payable "in current 
 funds" was held up by a thief and forced to 
 indorse and part with the certificate. The 
 thief negotiated it to an innocent purchaser 
 for value. In the meantime the issuing bank 
 was notified to stop payment. Opinion: 
 According to a Minnesota decision, the certi- 
 ficate is negotiable, and for that reason the 
 innocent holder is protected as against the 
 original owner. Vol. 2, p. 20, Jul}^, 1909. 
 
 Rights of innocent purchaser 
 
 273. (Pa.) A bank issued a negotiable 
 certificate of deposit for $500 to one of its 
 depositors in exchange for her check on the 
 same bank for $500, which, as it turned out, 
 was an overdraft of $100. The bank seeks 
 to know if it can refuse payment in case the 
 certificate should come to it through an inno- 
 cent purchaser. Opinion: So long as the 
 certificate remains in the depositor's hands 
 or is presented by her in person, the bank has 
 the right to withhold papnent of the excess 
 over $400. But if the certificate had been 
 negotiated. to a holder in due course the bank 
 would be liable for the full amount and would 
 have to look to the depositor for the over- 
 draft. Vol. 9, p. 750, March, 1917. • 
 
 274. (Wash.) A bank issued a nego- 
 tiable demand certificate to a depositor 
 against deposit of his check upon another 
 bank. Four days later the bank over the 
 
 long distance telej)liono, uj)on depositor's re- 
 <{uest, advised tiiat the certificate could be 
 cashed 0. K., as the dcposite<l ciieck had not 
 been returned. After the certificate was 
 caslied, the depositor's account in the other 
 bank was attached. Opinion: Where a bank 
 issues a negotiable demand certificate against 
 deposit of a check upon another bank, the 
 fact that the deposited check is dishonored 
 is no defense to the liability of the bank to 
 an innocent purchaser of the certificate. This 
 transaction illustrates the unwisdom of issu- 
 ing a negotiable certificate against uncollected 
 funds. Vol. 10, p. 467, Dec, 1917. 
 
 Insanity of payee 
 
 See 84G, 847 
 
 275. (111.) A certificate of deposit was 
 issued to a depositor, who later became in- 
 sane. The certificate was indorsed in blank 
 and the bank is doubtful Avhether the depos- 
 itor was insane at the time of the indorse- 
 ment. A relative was the holder of the cer- 
 tificate. Opinion: The bank should refuse 
 payment to the holder of the certificate in the 
 absence of positive proof that the indorse- 
 ment in blank and the delivery took place 
 while the depositor was sane. A guardian 
 or committee of the lunatic should be ap- 
 pointed to receive pa3'ment. If the holder 
 sues the bank a bill of interpleader should be 
 filed. Vol. 8, p. 32, July, 1915. 
 
 Negotiability 
 See 271, 272 
 
 276. (Mich.) A bank upon receiving 
 from an attorney $500, delivered its certifi- 
 cate of deposit to John Doe. The certificate 
 was made payable to John Doe in case of 
 default of a certain bond in the case of People 
 vs. Jones. The court records showed that 
 Jones was acquitted, and as there was no de- 
 fault on the bond, the attorney requested re- 
 turn of the certificate, which was refused. 
 The bank, however, returned the money to 
 the depositor without the surrender of the 
 certificate. Later, the certificate indorsed by 
 John Doe in blank was presented to the bank 
 and payment refused because of no evidence 
 to show that Jones had defaulted on his bond. 
 Opinion: A certificate of deposit payable on 
 condition is not negotiable, and where the 
 condition does not eventuate the issuing 
 bank may safely return the money to the de- 
 positor without surrender of the certificate. 
 The condition not being performed, neither 
 the payee nor an assignee acquires any en- 
 forceable rights therein. Vol. 10, p. 312, 
 Oct., 1917. 
 
 34
 
 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 
 
 283 
 
 277. (Cal.) A certificate of deposit 
 drawn payable to specified payee with the 
 words "non-transferable" written on or across 
 the face of the instrument is not negotiable. 
 Yol. 5, p. 374, Dec, 1912. 
 
 Statute of limitations 
 
 278. (Iowa.) A national bank in Xe- 
 braska issued a certificate of deposit on Jan- 
 uary 1, 1903, ''payable on return properly in- 
 dorsed one year from date." Eleven years 
 have elapsed and said certificate has not been 
 presented for payment. Opinion: The 
 weight of authority (a few cases contrary) is 
 to the effect that a certificate "payable on re- 
 turn properly indorsed" is not due until de- 
 manded and the statute of limitation begins 
 to run only from the time of demand. Where 
 the certificate is "payable on return properly 
 indorsed one 3"ear from date" some courts 
 apply the same rule that the statute does not 
 begin to run until demand of payment is 
 made, while other courts hold that the statute 
 begins to run at the time when the certificate 
 specifies it is due and payable. Yol. 6, p. 
 624, March, 1914. 
 
 279. (Minn.) A Minnesota bank carries 
 on its books two time certificates of deposit 
 issued in 1907, payable in six months. One 
 was issued to a party since deceased and the 
 other to a stranger, who cannot be located. 
 The bank seeks to dispose of the certificates. 
 Opinion: In Minnesota, a time certificate of 
 deposit is outlawed six years after maturity, 
 and the bank may credit undivided profits 
 with the amount of an unpaid certificate. In 
 some states statutes exist requiring unclaimed 
 deposits to be paid over to the public author- 
 ities. Vol. 9, p. 908, May, 1917. 
 
 Bank's obligation to know payee's 
 
 signature 
 
 See 512, 515, 5G3 
 
 280. (Ohio.) A bank issued a certifi- 
 cate of deposit without keeping a record of 
 tbc payee's signature. The certificate was 
 presented at the clearing house and paid by 
 the bank of deposit, althougli the presenting 
 
 bank refused to guarantee the payee's indorse- 
 ment. In the event the payee's indorsement 
 was a forgery, the paying bank questions its 
 right of recover}'. Opinion: Where bank 
 keeps file of signatures of payees to whom 
 certificates of deposit issued it is bound to 
 know payee's indorsement upon such certi- 
 ficates and cannot recover money paid on 
 forgery thereof. But this rule is limited to 
 cases where signature is kept on file. Vol. 9, 
 p. 5S4, Jan., 1917. 
 
 Transfer without indorsement 
 
 281. (111.) A certificate of deposit is- 
 sued to A was pledged by A to B for value, 
 without indorsement. After its maturity A, 
 upon a false written statement that he had 
 lost and had not negotiated the certificate, 
 obtained payment from the bank. B not 
 having been paid by A now seeks to hold tbe 
 bank liable on the unindorsed certificate 
 pledged by A. Opinion: The bank is not 
 liable to B who, taking without indorsement, 
 holds the certificate subject to any defense 
 good against A. A is criminally liable for 
 obtaining monev under false pretenses. Vol. 
 5, p. 668, April, 1913. 
 
 Withholding payment of time certificate 
 
 282. (Iowa.) The Iowa statute allows 
 savings banks to require sixty days' notice of 
 withdrawal of a savings deposit and question 
 is raised whether a bank would have the right, 
 by giving pul)lic notice, to withhold payment 
 of time certificates of deposit sixty days after 
 due date. Opinion: A bank must pay its 
 time certificate of deposit at maturity accord- 
 ing to its terms, in the absence of a contract 
 with the debtor expressed in certificate 
 or otherwise binding, which would give 
 it the right to require notice of withdrawal 
 given at a specified time before payment, un- 
 less there is some statutory provision which 
 gives it such right. Iowa statute giving sav- 
 ings banks rigiit to require sixty days' notice 
 of withdrawal of savings deposits interpreted 
 not to apply to time certificates of deposit 
 having fixed and definite time of maturitv. 
 Vol. 10, p. 123, Aug., 1917. See 497, 504. " 
 
 CHECKS -PAYMENT OF 
 
 For Eevocation of Check by BankruptLy, 216; by Death, 4o2 et seq.; by Insanity or Incom- 
 petency, 816 et seq.; see also 275, 302 
 
 Ambiguous and incomplete checks 
 
 See 891 
 
 283. (Cal.) The amount written in tbe 
 body of a check is $100.89 and in the margin 
 
 $189. The presenting bank protested it for 
 non-payment, as the drawee refused to pay 
 without a guaranty of the amount, which the 
 })resonting bank would not furnish. Opin- 
 ion: Wbere the amount written in the body 
 
 35
 
 284 
 
 DKJKS'r OF LEGAL OPiXiONS 
 
 of a chock is $I()().S!) niul in tlic niar^^Mii $189, 
 the sum denoted in llio body is llic amount 
 ])ayal)l(' and the check is proiostahlc n\Hm re- 
 fusal to pay tliat amount, though not if the 
 refusal is to i)ay the larger amount expressed 
 in the margin. Vol. 11, p. 2in, Oct., 1918. 
 
 284. (Pa.) Wlure a check has a pen 
 line drawn through the payee blank or the 
 pa3ce blank is unfilled, it is an unsafe in- 
 strument for a purchaser to acquire or a 
 drawee bank to pay. In the present condi- 
 tion of the law, it might 1)C held to be payable 
 to the bearer or it might be held an incom- 
 plete and invalid instrument. Whore the 
 drawer indorsed the instrument, it would be 
 extremely doubtful whether such indorse- 
 ment would cure the defect. Vol. 7, p. 489, 
 Jan., 1915. 
 
 285. (Pa.) Under the Negotiable In- 
 struments Law, where the drawer of a check 
 with payee blank unfdled entrusts the instru- 
 ment to a holder with authority to use it for 
 a specified purpose and the holder in breach 
 of trust fills in his own name as payee and 
 negotiates it to an innocent purchaser for 
 value, the purchaser w^ould be protected as 
 would be the drawee bank which paid such a 
 check; but if the holder who committed the 
 breach of trust should negotiate it without 
 authority, leaving the payee blank imfilled, 
 the purchaser would take the check subject 
 to the defense of the drawer that it had been 
 used without his authority and if the drawee 
 bank paid such a check witli the payee blank 
 unfilled, the drawer could object to being 
 charged with its amount for like reason. 
 Vol. 7, p. 489, Jan., 1915. 
 
 Instruments purporting to be bearer 
 checks 
 
 286. (Mass.) A check was drawn pay- 
 able to the order of "John Smith (bearer)."' 
 A party indorsed it John Smith and pre- 
 sented the item to the drawee which paid it 
 without identification. Opinion: The check 
 was not payable to any bearer but to John 
 Smith, wlio was the bearer, and identification 
 was therefore necessary for the bank's safetv. 
 Vol. 4, p. 431, Jan., 1912. 
 
 287. (Miss.) Where the drawer uses a 
 form of check "pay to or bear- 
 er," scratches out "or bearer'' and makes the 
 check read "pay to John Jones," this is nei- 
 ther a bearer check nor an order check but is 
 one payable to John Jones only and is not 
 negotiable. Vol. 4, p. 613, April, 1912. 
 
 288. (Wis.) A check payable to the 
 order of "cash" contains several indorsements 
 in blank and one s])ecial indorsement. Ofnn- 
 ion: The instrument is jiayable to bearer and 
 is transferable by delivery. It does not re- 
 quire any indorsement at all, either of maker 
 or any one else, to make it transferable or 
 l)ayablc. Vol. 2, p. 303, Jan., 1910. 
 
 Bearer check without indorsement 
 
 Sec, 070, G80 
 
 289. (Ala.) A Jjank followed the prac- 
 tice of paying checks drawn on it payable 
 to "cash." Payment was made to the hold- 
 ers without indorsement of the drawer and 
 the bank questions the safety of paying such 
 checks ^vlien not presented by the drawer in 
 person. Opinion: A check drawn payable to 
 "cash" is payable to bearer and can be safely 
 paid by the drawee bank to a holder other 
 than the drawer without the indorsement of 
 the latter. The drawee is under obligation 
 to the drawer to pay in the absence of evi- 
 dence of circumstances indicating that the 
 holder may have come by the check wrong- 
 fully. Vol. 10, p. 311, Oct., 1917. 
 
 290. (111.) A check drawn payable to A 
 or bearer was lost by A and a bank paid the 
 amount to the bearer without A's indorse- 
 ment, A not receiving any money. The check 
 contained several special indorsements. Opin- 
 ion: The check being payable to bearer could 
 be negotiated by delivery even if indorsed 
 specially and payment by the bank to the 
 bearer was valid, and A was the loser. Vol. 
 4, p. 488, Feb., 1912. 
 
 291. (Pa.) A check payable to bearer 
 does not require indorsement, and payment to 
 bearer without indorsement is proper and 
 chargeable. ]\Iany banks request indorse- 
 ment by the holder, but if such request is 
 denied it is not sufficient reason for refusing 
 payment of the check. Vol. 3, p. 680, May, 
 1911. 
 
 292. (S. Dak.) Eichard Roe draws his 
 check payable to "John Doe or Bearer." Can 
 the paying bank be compelled to pay the 
 amount to a third party as bearer without the 
 indorsement of the payee? Opinion: A 
 check payable to "John Doe or Bearer" is 
 payable to bearer and does not require the 
 indorsement of John Doe to entitle the bearer 
 to receive pavment. Vol. 11, p. 393, Jan., 
 1919. 
 
 Checks signed in blank 
 
 293. (Cal.) A thief stole from a check- 
 l)Ook a check bearing onlv the name of the 
 
 .^fi
 
 CHECKS— PAYMENT OF 
 
 299 
 
 drawer, and negotiated it for value to an 
 innocent purchaser. Payment of the check 
 was stopped. Opinion: Payment can he 
 stopped and the drawer is not liahle to the 
 innocent purchaser. Vol. G, p. 94, Aug., 
 1913. See 304, 800. 
 
 294. (111.) A certain liorse buyer in In- 
 diana had been sending dated and signed 
 checks to his agent in Illinois, who had au- 
 thority to fill in the amounts. On one oc- 
 casion the agent made out a check for $(568.25 
 which should have been for $550 and nego- 
 tiated it to a bank which had been in the 
 habit of cashing such checks. The drawer 
 stopped payment. The purchasing bank 
 seeks to hold the drawer. Opinion: Under 
 the common law rule the drawer would be 
 liable to a bona fide holder for the increased 
 amount, but not so liable under the Negoti- 
 able Instruments Law unless the amount was 
 filled in before negotiation and the purchas- 
 ing bank had no notice that the check was 
 filled in for an unauthorized amount. Vol. 
 3, p. 734, June, 1911. 
 
 Conversion of check by bank 
 
 295. (Md.) The holder of a check pre- 
 sents it to a l)ank for certification and the 
 bank, instead of returning it to the holder un- 
 certified, there being insufficient funds and 
 the drawer also having stopped payment, 
 hands the check over to the drawer. The 
 original holder threatens to bring suit against 
 the bank to recover the check. Opinion: 
 The bank is liable to the holder for conver- 
 sion of the check, unless it can affirmatively 
 prove that the drawer had a good defense 
 thereon against the holder. It is doul)tful 
 whether the bank could be held as acceptor 
 under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Vol, 
 11, p. 558, April. 1919. See 340. 
 
 Receipt as substitute for counter check 
 
 296. (N. Y.) A receipt signed by a de- 
 positor acknowledging payment of a dei)osit 
 would not be of equal protection to the bank 
 as a counter check, where payment was made 
 to one other than the depositor personally, 
 for sliould the reccii)t be presented by a 
 wrongful holder it would not l)e binding on 
 the depositor, as would a check wliich con- 
 tains an order and autliority to the bank to 
 pay. In case of savings deposit payable 
 only on presentation of book, payment to a 
 wrongful holder upon presentation of book 
 and receipt might be valid if reasonal)lc 
 care was used. Vol. 10, p. 853, June, 1918. 
 
 Crediting depositor's account with checks 
 on same bank operates as payment 
 
 297. (Cal.) A bank having a commer- 
 cial and savings department was in the habit 
 of receiving checks from its customer depos- 
 ited to his credit in his savings account, said 
 checks being drawn on the commercial de- 
 partment of the same bank. Occasionally the 
 checks so deposited, when presented to the de- 
 partment on which drawn were found to be 
 not good, or that payment of the same had 
 been stopped. In such cases it was the bank's 
 practice to charge the item back to its depos- 
 itor. It was claimed that when the bank ac- 
 cepted a check drawn on itself even though 
 on another department, for deposit over the 
 counter, that it constitutes payment of the 
 check and the bank has no right to charge the 
 item back to its depositor, even though said 
 check was found not good or payment thereon 
 had been stopped. Opinion: In California, 
 contrary to the majority of cases elsewhere, it 
 has been held that the credit to a depositor 
 of a check drawn on the same bank by another 
 depositor, is not equivalent to payment, but 
 the check is presumptively taken by the bank 
 for collection from itself and may be charged 
 back to the depositor at the close of the day if 
 the funds drawn against are insufficient. 
 Same rule applied to right of departmental 
 bank to charge back overdraft upon one de- 
 partment deposited in another. Vol. 10, p. 
 201, Sept., 1917. 
 
 298. (Okla.) A bank credited its cus- 
 tomer with the proceeds of a check drawn 
 upon it, and in sorting the checks discovered 
 that tlie drawer had no account. The drawer 
 happened in the bank a few minutes later 
 and instructed the cashier to change the name 
 of the drawee to another bank. The check 
 was presented to the new drawee the same 
 afternoon, but ])ayment had been stopped. 
 The dejxjsitor of the check obj(vts to being 
 charged therewith. Opinion: The amount is 
 not chargeable l)ack to the depositor, if he 
 acted in good faith, because of the rule 
 (adoj)ted by a majority of courts), that credit 
 of a check upon the depositary operates as 
 payment and is irrevocable. The fact that 
 the drawer, after the check had been paid by 
 the credit, changed tiie check and made it 
 payal)lc at another bank does not atTect the 
 rights of the pavee. Vol. 8, p. 801, ^larch, 
 191(;. 
 
 Relation of bank upon deposit of check 
 
 299. (111.) A bank received for deposit 
 a clieck of its customer drawn on an out-of- 
 
 37
 
 300 
 
 DIGEST OF LEGAL OriXIONS 
 
 town point and credited him with tlic amount. 
 Before the check was paid, tlie customer de- 
 manded certilication of a check ai^ainst his de- 
 posit. Opinion: Tlie authorities are in con- 
 Hict whether tlie giving of credit for a de- 
 posited check makes the bank debtor or agent 
 for collection, but the relation is generally 
 eont rolled by custom or agreement making 
 l)ank an agent and not obliged to pay against 
 uncollected funds — certification as distin- 
 guished from payment is optional with bank 
 and not obligatory. Vol. 8, p. 40, July, 1915. 
 See -128, 42:'). 
 
 Point of time when check received 
 
 through mail is paid 
 
 See 135 
 
 300. (Iowa.) Where a check against 
 suflicient funds is received by the drawee 
 through tlie mail, it is paid at the time it is 
 charged to the drawer's account and can- 
 celled; so that thereafter the drawer cannot 
 stop payment nor can a receiver or assignee 
 of the drawer claim the fund, although remit- 
 tance has not been made. Some courts hold 
 the check paid even before charged to account, 
 where it has been cancelled and filed as paid. 
 But where a check against insufficient funds 
 or a forged check received through the mail 
 is by mistake marked ''^paid" and the mistake 
 corrected before it is charged to the account, 
 some authorities support the conclusion that 
 the check is not finally paid but the mistake 
 can be corrected and the check returned. Vol. 
 11, p. 604, May, 1919. 
 
 301. (Mass.) A check against sufficient 
 funds is received through the mail by a 
 drawee bank for payment and remittance. 
 The drawee seeks to find out at what time in 
 the physical handling of the check by the 
 drawee it is paid, after which it will be too 
 late for the draw'cr to stop payment, or to 
 withdraw, or control the fund. Opinion: 
 The check is paid at the time the amount is 
 charged to the drawer's account, and the 
 check is cancelled ; thereafter the fund is held 
 for the credit of the holder and control of the 
 drawer ceases and he has no right to stop paj'- 
 ment, even though actual remittance has not 
 been made. Vol. 9, p. 899, May, 1917. 
 
 Drawer of check a fugitive from justice 
 
 302. (Pa.) A depositor committed a 
 crime and became a fugitive from justice, his 
 whereabouts being unknown. A check drawn 
 by him still remains outstanding and a cred- 
 itor notifies the bank to withhold pa}'ment 
 
 of the deposit. Opinion: While death, insan- 
 ity or insolvency of a depositor revokes the 
 authority of a bank to pay his check, it has 
 never been decided that the fact that a de- 
 positor is a fugitive from justice operates, 
 ipso facto, as a revocation. A bank should 
 I)ay his outstanding check in the absence of 
 circumstances showing that the fugitive is 
 seeking to defraud his creditors and that the 
 check is given in bad faith. \'ol. 1 1, p. 669, 
 June, 1919. 
 
 Drawer's liability on unpaid check 
 
 303. (Okla.) John Doe drew two checks 
 of the amounts of $196.50 and $53.50, which 
 he gave to Smith in payment of a note held 
 by Smith. Smith surrendered the note and 
 received the proceeds of the smaller check, 
 but the larger check was dishonored because 
 of insufficient funds. Doe afterwards in- 
 dorsed the larger check "0. K. after January 
 11, 1913," but subsequently refused to pay 
 same. Opinion: Smith has a right of action 
 against Doe based on the unpaid check and 
 Smith's possession of the note is not necessary. 
 Doe's indorsement did not alter his obliga- 
 tion on the check. Vol. 8, p. 914, April, 
 1916. 
 
 Duty of care of check-book 
 
 304. (Mo.) A customer carelessly leaves 
 his check-book lying around the office, ac- 
 cessible to clerks, and a blank check is stolen, 
 forged and paid by the bank. Opinion: The 
 bank is responsible to its customer for money 
 paid on his forged signature and the careless- 
 ness of the customer is not such negligence 
 as ■ will charge him with responsibility. 
 Vol. 6, p. 822, June, 1914. See 342. 
 
 Payment of exchange charge 
 
 305. (N. Y.) A drew his check upon the 
 B bank, payable to C, who is located at a dis- 
 tance and the check was collected through the 
 Federal reserve bank and the funds remitted 
 by B to that bank. The question was did the 
 B bank have the right without special con- 
 tract to charge A with the exchange or cost 
 of remitting the funds. Opinion: B bank's 
 obligation is to pay the check at its banking 
 house and if it remits the funds to another 
 place, such service is for the holder and it 
 cannot make an exchange charge against the 
 drawer without his consent. Vol. 9, p. 239, 
 Sept., 1916. 
 
 306. (N. M.) A bank wires B bank to 
 pay C $12,000 and promises to remit. B 
 
 38
 
 CHECKS— PAYMEXT OF 
 
 314 
 
 thereafter receives from A bank its cashier's 
 check of $12,000, which is subject to the ex- 
 change charge of $30. Opinion: A's promise 
 is not fulfilled by remitting a cashier's check 
 which is subject to exchange. B bank is en- 
 titled to receive the full amount without de- 
 duction of the charge. Vol. 11, p. 167, Sept., 
 1918. 
 
 For full payment of account 
 
 See Statement of consideration altered — 109, 110 
 
 and Note 
 
 307. (Cal.) The correct amount due to 
 a bank on a note was $150 and the debtor 
 tendered in payment a check for $140, con- 
 taining the words "in full payment of the 
 note." The bank accepted the check and ap- 
 plied it as a partial payment. Opinion: The 
 check did not settle the entire debt and the 
 l)ank can recover $10 more. Had the bank's 
 claim been imcertain as to amount, its ac- 
 ceptance would have barred recovery of the 
 balance. Vol. 4, p. 430, Jan., 1912. 
 
 308. (Idaho.) A contractor drew a check 
 payable to an electric company, and made a 
 notation thereon to the effect that the check 
 was in full payment of account on a certain 
 contract. The electric company indorsed the 
 check and added "This is to apply on account 
 
 amounting to $ and is not payment in 
 
 full." Opinion: Where the payee accepts 
 and collects check stated to be "in full of 
 account" for less than amount of his claim, 
 he is not debarred from recovering balance if 
 amount of claim is liquidated or undisputed, 
 but if amount is the subject of honest dispute, 
 his acceptance and collection of check oper- 
 ates as a bar to further recovery, even though 
 paj'ee negatives condition and asserts check 
 is received as part payment only. Vol. 8, 
 p. 699, Feb., 1916. 
 
 309. (111.) A debtor and creditor had 
 an honest dispute as to the amount due upon 
 an open account as shown by their respective 
 books. The debtor sent a check for less than 
 the amount claimed, stated to be "in full of 
 account." Opinion: Where the dispute be- 
 tween the debtor and creditor is bona fide, 
 the acceptance of the check for the less 
 amount Avould bar recovery of any further 
 amount. Vol. 7, p. 893, May, 1915. 
 
 310. (Md.) Where check "in full" is 
 given for a fixed and undisputed claim of 
 greater amount, acceptance by creditor does 
 not bar recovery of balance — but where claim 
 is disputed and unliquidated, acceptance by 
 creditor prevents further recoverv. Vol. 5, 
 p. 590, March, 1913. 
 
 311. (Mass.) The maker of a check 
 given for a debt has written thereon "in full 
 to March 1, 1911." The payee desires to 
 know whether the acceptance by him of the 
 check will operate as an acknowledgment on 
 liis part that the amount of the check is in 
 full to March 1st. Opinion : Where the check 
 is given for an unliquidated debt or claim, 
 acceptance by the payee bars further recov- 
 ery; but it is otherwise where the amount is 
 not in dispute and the check is less than the 
 sum due. Vol. 4, p. 218, Oct., 1911. 
 
 Instrument payable at future date 
 
 312. (Ark.) An instrument drawn on a 
 check form, bearing date ]May 16, 1918, was 
 presented at a bank and paid May 20th. In 
 the bodv of the check form was written "Due 
 and payable Tuesday, May 21, 1918." Opin- 
 ion: The instrument is not a post-dated 
 check but a bill of exchange drawn by a cus- 
 tomer upon the bank, payable on May 21. 
 The bank is governed by the words "due and 
 payable Tuesday, May 21, 1918," contained 
 in the body over the drawee's signature, and 
 should not pay it before that time. The in- 
 strument is a bill of exchange and is subject 
 to the rule governing bills of exchange which 
 gives the holder the right to present for ac- 
 ceptance and protest for non-acceptance at 
 any time after he receives the instrument and 
 before its maturity. Vol. 10, p. 854, June, 
 1918. 
 
 Check given for gambling debt 
 
 313. (111.) Richard Roe issues his check 
 to his own order and after indorsing it de- 
 livers it to John Doe in payment of a gam- 
 bling debt. The check was presented by Doe 
 and returned to him by the bank without no- 
 tation, in obedience to Roe's stop order. Later 
 Roe cashed the check at another bank, wliich 
 had no knowledge of the whole transaction. 
 This bank regarding the instrument as a 
 bearer check seeks to hold the drawer respon- 
 sible. Opinion: In Illinois and many other 
 states a check or other instrument given in 
 jiayment of a gambling debt is void and has 
 l)een held unenrorceal)le even in the hands of 
 a bona fide holder. In some states, it has 
 been held the Negotiable Instruments Act 
 protects the holder in due course of such an 
 instrument, while in other states the contrary 
 has been held. Vol. 11, p. 277, Nov., 1918. 
 
 314. (W. Va.) A bank cashed a check 
 in good faith drawn by A, payable to B. 
 Payment was stopped by A, who declared that 
 
 39
 
 31') 
 
 DIGEST OF LEGAL OPINIONS 
 
 the clieck was fijivcn for a <,fanil)linf( debt. 
 Opiniun: Before the Negotiable Instruments 
 Act it was held that the bank which inno- 
 cently purchased a check or note given for a 
 gambling debt and declared void by state 
 statute iiad no right of recovery. The de- 
 cisions conflict whether the Negotiable In- 
 struments Act protects a holder in due course 
 in such cases. Tiiat Act ])rovi(lcs that "a 
 holder in due course holds the instrument free 
 from any defect of title of prior parties and 
 free from defenses available to prior parties 
 among themselves," and it has not been de- 
 cided in West Virginia whether this provi- 
 sion repeals the state statute declaring gaming 
 contracts void. Vol. d, p. 348, Oct., 1!J16. 
 
 Effect on negotiability of provision "in 
 
 exchange" 
 
 See 901, 1142 
 
 315. (Iowa.) A Chicago bank sends an 
 Iowa bank for collection and remittance a 
 check drawn on X bank in Iowa payable "in 
 exchange." The collecting bank remits the 
 Chicago bank the face of the check, adds the 
 exchange and presents to the X bank which 
 refuses to pay the amount plus exchange. 
 The X bank contends the collecting bank has 
 no right to charge it with exchange for the 
 service of remitting. The latter contends 
 that on a check so drawn, the drawer agrees 
 to pay the exchange charges which would 
 otlierwise fall on the payee. It asks as its 
 right to protest the check. Opinion: Accord- 
 ing to some courts the check is not negotiable 
 because not payable in money and it is there- 
 fore questionable whether it is properly pro- 
 testable. Vol. 2, p. 33-i, Feb., 1910. 
 
 316. (N. Y.) Checks are sometimes 
 made ])ayable "in New York exchange" or "in 
 New York exchange at current rates" and 
 the question frequently arises as to the nego- 
 tiability of an instrument so payable. Opin- 
 ion: In ^Minnesota, Missouri and Illinois it 
 has been held that the instrument is not 
 payable in money, but in a bill of exchange 
 which is commodity or property and therefore 
 is not negotiable. Another view taken by a 
 Federal Court holds that the instrument is 
 payable in money with exchange added and 
 is therefore negotiable. A more recent case 
 in the Federal Court holds that the instru- 
 ment is payable in money (i.e. "in" or bv 
 giving) a bill of exchange therefor on New 
 York and is negotiable under the Negotiable 
 Instruments Act. It is obvious in view of 
 the above conflict that no opinion can be 
 asserted with positiveness either in affirma- 
 
 tion or denial of the negotiability of a check 
 payable "in New York exchange." Vol. 9, 
 p. 741, March, 1917. 
 
 Effect of memorandum on check 
 
 Sec :y.n, 128!) 
 
 317. (N. Y.) A check was dated Feb. 
 (ith and in the loft hand corner was a pencil 
 memorandum "to l)e used Feb. 8th." Opin- 
 ion: The bank could not safely pay before 
 February 8th. Vol. 3, p. 518, March, 1911. 
 
 Checks for more than balance 
 
 318. (Fla.) Where a number of checks 
 are presented to a bank simultaneously 
 through the clearing house or by mail which 
 aggregate more than the amount to the cus- 
 tomer's credit, the bank is bound to pay the 
 checks to the extent of the amomit on deposit 
 and has the option to select wliich it will pay 
 and which reject in the absence of a clearing- 
 house rule or custom to the contrary. Vol. 
 ll,p. 485, March, 1919. 
 
 319. (Ky.) AVhere a number of checks 
 aggregating more than the customer's balance 
 are presented at the same time through the 
 Clearing House and the balance is sufficient 
 to pay only some of them, the l}ank must pay 
 such of the checks as the deposit is sufficient 
 to meet and may choose which to pay and 
 which to reject, but it will be liable in dam- 
 ages if it returns all such checks unpaid. 
 Checks presented through the morning's mail 
 have priority over checks later presented 
 through the clearing house. Vol. 7, p. 778, 
 April, 1915. 
 
 320. (La.) Two or more checks are 
 simultaneously presented at a bank, each 
 taken separately for less, but any two aggre- 
 gating more than the customer's balance. 
 Opinion: The bank should not send all the 
 checks back, but should pay any one of them 
 and return the rest. Vol. 3, p. 202, Oct., 
 1910. 
 
 321. (La.) Two checks of $30 and $10, 
 respectively were simultaneously presented, 
 the smaller check being within and the larger 
 check in excess of the customer's balance. 
 Opinion: It is the duty of the bank to pay the 
 smaller check rather than to dishonor both 
 checks. Vol. 3, p. 14G, Sept., 1910. 
 
 322. (S. C.) The customer of a bank 
 with $50 to his credit drew four checks of 
 amoimts of $10, $25, $50 and $60, respec- 
 tively, in favor of four different parties. The 
 checks bore the same date and were presented 
 through the clearing house at the same time. 
 
 40
 
 CHECKS— PAYMENT OF 
 
 328 
 
 Opinion: Where a number of checks aggre- 
 gating more than the depositor's balance are 
 presented at the same time through the clear- 
 ing house and the balance is sufficient to pay 
 some of them, the bank must pay such of the 
 checks as the deposit is sufficient to meet and 
 may choose which to pay and which to reject, 
 but it will be liable in damages if it returns 
 all such checks unpaid. Vol. 7, p. 31, July, 
 1914. 
 
 Draft drawn on particular fund 
 
 323. (Ala.) Explanation is asked of 
 meaning of and distinction between provi- 
 sions of Negotiable Instruments Law that 
 (a) order or promise to pay is unconditional 
 though coupled with indication of particular 
 fund out of which reimbursement is to be 
 made and (b) order or promise to pay out of 
 particular fund is not unconditional. Opin- 
 ion: The first stated provision relates to an 
 instrument not payable out of a particular 
 fund but payable generally and merely indi- 
 cating such fund as a source of reimburse- 
 ment. The last stated provision covers a case 
 where the instrument is payable only out of 
 a particular fund, and payment depends upon 
 the sufficiency of the fund. Hence, in the 
 latter case, the instrument is non-negotiable 
 because not payable absolutely, while in the 
 first stated case negotiability is not affected 
 because payment is absolutely and uncondi- 
 tionally promised. Vol. 5, p. 312, Nov., 
 1912. 
 
 Containing provisions affecting negotia- 
 bility 
 
 See 347, 513, 801, 1280 
 
 324. (Kan.) The following bank checks 
 are submitted for criticism : Check No. 1 is 
 the ordinary form of bank check, except that 
 the payee blank contains the words "pay to 
 the order of payee shown on back." The 
 payee blank of cbeck No. 2 contains the words 
 "pay to the order of payee and all indorsers 
 shown on back," Opinion: A check made 
 payable "to the order of payee shown on back" 
 designates the payee with sufficient certainty 
 and is negotiable. The use of this form in 
 check No. 1 is not preferable to tbc old style 
 of forms. The other form sul)mittcd which 
 is made payable to the "order of payee and all 
 indorsers shown on back" would not serve a 
 useful purpose because it provides for a mul- 
 tiplicity of payees. Vol. 11, p. 328, Dec, 
 1918. 
 
 Not payable through express company 
 
 S.'o ;!!I2 
 
 325. (Miss.) A check stamped "not 
 payable through an express company" was 
 presented by an express company and the 
 drawee refused payment, although the funds 
 were sufificient. The ex])ress company caused 
 the check to be protested. The bank desires 
 to know whether by refusing payment it in- 
 curs liability to the drawer for damages or 
 whether payment was rightfully refused. 
 Opinion : The drawer cannot hold the drawee 
 liable thereon in damages for injuring his 
 credit. The restriction is valid, does not 
 affect negotiability, and the check was not 
 properly protestable.Vol. 6, p. 371, Nov., 
 1913. 
 
 326. (N. Y.) Where the drawer of a 
 check stamps the same "not payable through 
 an express company" (1) such provision is 
 valid and does not affect the negotiability, 
 (2) the duty of the drawee is to refuse pay- 
 ment when the check is presented through the 
 prohibited agency, (3) the drawee so refusing 
 would not incur liability either to the drawer 
 or the holder, (4) the check could not be law- 
 fully protested and the holder causing protest 
 would be liable to the drawer in damages. 
 Vol. 9, p. 902, May, 1917. 
 
 327. (S. Dak.) The words "not payable 
 through an express company" printed on the 
 face of a check are a valid provision, and do 
 not affect the negotiability of the check, which 
 can be presented through other channels. 
 Vol. 7, p. 305, Nov., 1914. 
 
 OfHcial checks for private use 
 See 500, 670 
 
 328. (Conn.) A customer gave his 
 check drawn payable to a company to the com- 
 pany's agent, who liad the same certified at 
 the bank before indorsement. After certifi- 
 cation the agent indorsed tiie company's name 
 and then his own name individually, and 
 thereupon John Jones also indorsed the 
 check and the same was cashed for the agent 
 by a bank where John Jones had a personal 
 account, relying upon John Jones's warranty. 
 The check was paid by the drawee, but the 
 company did not receive the amount. Opin- 
 ion: Assuming the agent had no authority to 
 indorse for the company, the cashing bank 
 which paid tiie check upon tiie unauthorized 
 indorsement is liable to certifying bank, and 
 can recover from John Jones upon his in- 
 dorsement. If the agent's indorsement was 
 
 41
 
 329 
 
 DIGEST OF LEGAL Oi'INlOXS 
 
 authorized, the amount is chargeable against 
 the drawer's account. Vol. 7, p. 4D1, Jan., 
 Iiil5. 
 
 329. (Ga.) The clicck of a corporation 
 signed in tlie name of tlie corporation by "A, 
 Treasurer,'' or by A in some otlicr official 
 ca])acity, given in payment of a draft drawn 
 on A individually, would carry notice from 
 the form of the check and charge the holder 
 with the duty of inquiry as to the authority of 
 A to use the corporate funds to pay his pri- 
 vate debt. Vol. 5, p. 168, Sept., 1913. 
 
 330. (111.) Under the existing condition 
 of the law, there is some doubt whether the 
 drawee bank is safe in paying a treasurer's 
 clicck to his personal order without inquiry. 
 It would be safer for a bank paying such 
 cliecks to require a resolution of the corpora- 
 tion authorizing the bank to pay its checks 
 when made out to the official's own order or 
 to bearer as well as to third persons. Vol. 3, 
 p. 584, April, 1911. 
 
 331. (Mo.) John Jones presented for 
 credit to his individual account a check for 
 $7,000 drawn on another bank to his own 
 order by himself as treasurer of a company. 
 The check was indorsed by him in blank. It 
 afterwards develops that the treasurer is mis- 
 appropriating the company's funds. Opin- 
 ion: It has been held by the Appellate Di- 
 vision of the New York Supreme Court in a 
 similar case that the mere form of the check 
 charged the bank of deposit with notice that 
 the treasurer was using corporate funds for 
 his private purposes and made it liable to the 
 corporation therefor. Vol. 2, p. 413, April, 
 1910. 
 
 Note: The above decision was subsequently re- 
 versed by the New York Court of Appeals which 
 hold that if it be conceded a diity of inquiry 
 rested upon the bank of deposit, such inquiry was 
 sufficiently made and the duty discharged by pre- 
 sentment to the drawee bank, and payment of the 
 check was an answer to the inquiry. 
 
 332. (S. Dak.) A check made payable 
 to and owned by the N Trust Company was 
 indorsed in the name of the trust company 
 by its secretary to his individual order, fol- 
 lowed by his personal indorsement, and then 
 was negotiated by him to the P Banking 
 Compan}^, which paid him part thereof in 
 currency, credited the balance to his personal 
 account and thereafter collected the draft. 
 Opinion: The P Banking Company was liable 
 to the N Trust Company for the proceeds, as 
 the indorsement of the secretary was without 
 express or implied authority of the trust 
 
 company, and furthermore the collecting 
 
 hank was put on inquiry by the apparent ir- 
 regularity in the form of the transaction. 
 Vol. 5, p. 370, Dec, 1912. 
 
 Checks for less than one dollar 
 
 333. (Hawaii.) Checks in sums less 
 than one dollar, issued in the regular course 
 of business payments, are not prohibited by 
 hiw — Section 178 of the United States Crim- 
 inal Code of 1909 (substance of such section 
 liaving been enacted in 1863) which forbids 
 the making of a check for a less sum than one 
 dollar intended to circulate as money — has 
 been misconstrued, and does not apply to 
 checks issued for purposes of pavment not of 
 circulation. Vol. 3, p. 590, April, 1911. 
 See article in Vol. 2, p. 152. 
 
 Partnership checks 
 
 See 487, 488 
 
 334. (N. J.) Upon death of one part- 
 ner, survivor has right to draw checks on 
 partnership account. Vol. 1, p. 203, Dec, 
 1908. 
 
 Checks payable in one state and negoti- 
 ated in another 
 See 1113, 1148 
 
 335. (Utah.) Check drawn and payable 
 in same state does not become a foreign bill 
 because indorsed in another state and protest 
 is not required but optional. Vol. 3, p. 585, 
 April, 1911. 
 
 336. (Wyo.) A check dated at Sheri- 
 dan, Wyoming, and drawTi on a bank of that 
 place bears the indorsement of a bank out- 
 side of the state. It is questioned whether by 
 reason of the indorsement it becomes a for- 
 eign bill of exchange so as to require protest. 
 Opinion: Notwithstanding such indorsement 
 the check is an inland bill of exchange and 
 does not require protest. Vol. 2, p. 231, Dec, 
 1909. 
 
 Check payable to A for account of B 
 
 337. (Cal.) A drawee bank paid a check 
 drawn payable to A, upon which was written 
 "for the account of B" or ''to be placed to 
 the credit of B.'' Opinion: The drawee bank 
 in paying the check was not charged with the 
 duty of seeing that A applied the money to 
 B's account. The bank was tmder no duty 
 to procure B's indorsement or to see that B's 
 interest was protected. Vol. 7, p. 689, March, 
 1915. 
 
 42
 
 CHECKS— PAYMENT OF 
 
 344 
 
 Check payable to drawee and presented 
 by third person 
 
 338. (Wis.) A customer drew a check in 
 •which the drawer ordered the bank to pay 
 itself, and delivered the check to a third per- 
 son, "who presented it to the bank. The bank 
 refused to pay without making inquiry from 
 the drawer, while the third party contended 
 that the check was in effect payable to bearer 
 and should be paid without such inquiry. 
 Opinion: Under the present condition of the 
 law, the best course is for the bank to refuse 
 to pay without inquiry as to the authority of 
 the holder to collect the money. Such check 
 is certainly not payable to bearer. Vol. 
 S, p. 511, Dec, 1915." 
 
 Form of payroll check to protect against 
 loss 
 
 339. (Minn.) A concern carrying a 
 large payroll fmds that three-fourth of its 
 payroll checks are cashed in saloons and de- 
 sires a check drawn in such a form that the 
 employee must cash it at the bank. Opin- 
 ion: A suggestion is made that the check be 
 drawn payable to the. payee only, and on the 
 back print a receipt for wages to be signed by 
 the payee and the signature witnessed by the 
 paymaster, and under such signature add an- 
 other Ihie for the payee's indorsement, which 
 lie must make in the presence of the bank 
 officer before payment. Such a system will 
 (1) safeguard payor bank from risk of iden- 
 tification; (2) relieve payee from risk of loss, 
 and (3) remove saloon-cashing evil. Vol. 7, 
 p. 579, Feb., 1915. 
 
 Right to possession of unused certified 
 check 
 
 340. (Idaho.) Tlie customer of a bank 
 drew a check of $250 in favor of the state 
 treasurer, Avhich was certified by the bank's 
 assistant cashier. A month later the check, 
 never having been used nor indorsed, was re- 
 turned to the bank by the customer with a 
 request that the bank send him a draft for 
 the amount. The request was refused and 
 the customer demanded the return of the 
 check. Opinion: The customer and not tiic 
 bank has a better right to the check, which 
 should be returned after cancellation of tiie 
 certification. Vol. 4, p. 553, March, 1912. 
 See 42, 295. 
 
 Duty of care in preparing check 
 See 93 
 
 341. (Iowa.) It is the duty of the 
 drawer to exercise ordinary care in preparing 
 his check. Tlie question of negligence does 
 not arise imless the depositor leaves blanks 
 unfilled or by some affirmative act of negli- 
 gence facilitates fraud. While he may be 
 liable where he draws the instrument in such 
 incomplete shape as to facilitate or invite 
 fraudulent alterations, he is not bound to so 
 prepare the check that nobody else can suc- 
 cessfully tamper with it. Xo judicial deci- 
 sion or statute exists at the present time 
 which would require the drawer of a cheek to 
 use a protectograph, check punch, safety 
 paper or other protective device in order to 
 absolve himself from the charge of negli- 
 gence in case the instrument were altered or 
 forged. Vol. 8, p. 1016, May, 1916. 
 
 342. (Iowa.) In the execution of a 
 check, it is the duty of the drawer to exercise 
 ordinary care. A drawer does not use ordi- 
 nary care when he fills in the amount of a 
 check in the middle of the line so that a per- 
 son can prefix an increased amount, or when 
 he signs a check in blank and carelessly leaves 
 it lying around. However, a drawer is not 
 responsible where he carelessly leaves his 
 check-book around unsigned. The courts 
 have never yet held tliat banker's drafts 
 must be safeguarded by a protectograph, nor 
 that the drawing of a check by a customer in 
 lead pencil is negligent. Vol. 3, p. 148, Sept., 
 1910. 
 
 343. (Mass.) The amount of a check 
 was not expressed in words written in the or- 
 dinary way but in figures stamped by a 
 machine in the body of the instrument. 
 Opinion: The instrument is valid and nego- 
 tiable, and the maker is not negligent in so 
 drawing the check. Vol. 7, p. 892, Mav, 
 1915. 
 
 344. (N. C.) A bank in issuing a draft 
 filled it out in ])en and ink witii ordinary 
 care, but did not use a protectograph. The 
 draft was subseciucntly fraudulently raised to 
 an increased amount, perforated and negoti- 
 ated to an innocent purchaser. Opinion: The 
 innocent purchaser would have no recourse 
 upon the drawer except for the original 
 amount. Xo case has gone to the extent of 
 holding the amount must be protected by 
 perforation. Vol. 11, p. 99, Aug., 1918. 
 
 43
 
 345 
 
 DIGEST OF LKOAL OPINIONS 
 
 Refusal to pay duly presented check 
 
 345. (Wash.) Exccj)! in few states 
 where check is an assignment, tlic holder of 
 a check (not certified) has no right of action 
 against the bank which refuses to pay same 
 but sole recourse is upon drawer and prior 
 parties. Vol. 5, p. :i:il, Dec, 11)152. See 
 346. 
 
 Note: With tlio almost uiiivorsal onactmcnt of 
 tlie Negotiable Instninieiits Law, the rule that a 
 check, of itself, constitutes an assignment of the 
 deposit to the payee, disappears. 
 
 Refusal to pay check with suspicious 
 appearance 
 
 346. (N. Y.) A check was presented 
 and payment refused by the bank because the 
 instrument written in indelible pencil con- 
 tained partly erased figures and the writing 
 was obscure. The bank telephoned the maker, 
 who stated that he had not drawn the check. 
 The check was protested and subsequently 
 the maker notified the bank that he had 
 drawn the check. Opinion: A bank is under 
 obligation to its depositor to pay his properly 
 drawn check when duly presented, if the 
 funds are sufficient, but where the check 
 when presented bears a suspicious appearance, 
 it is the bank's duty to refuse to pay until it 
 has had opportunity to make inquiry and 
 satisfy itself as to its genuineness. The de- 
 scription of the check would certainly indi- 
 cate a suspicious appearance sufficient to put 
 the bank on inquiry and having made in- 
 quiry, payment was properly refused. Vol. 
 10, p. 537, Jan., 1918. See 348. 
 
 Effect of remittance stamp 
 
 347. (Minn.) A customer issues checks 
 upon which has been stamped "The First 
 State Bank of B will remit for this check in 
 Eastern exchange, without charge" and ques- 
 tions whether the use of this stamp would 
 make the bank liable as upon certification or 
 simply convey the information that the check 
 will be paid at par. Opinion: The remit- 
 tance stamp having been placed on the checks 
 before they were issued would not have the 
 effect of a certification. A possible question 
 might arise whether the stamp affected the 
 negotiability of the check and the words "if 
 desired," if added would remove any doubt 
 thereon. Vol. 5, p. 756, May, 1913. 
 
 Signatures 
 See 280, 512 ef seq., 561 et seq. 
 
 348. (Ariz.) The first letter of a draw- 
 er's name, to wit "R," was written by another 
 
 and the drawer finished tiie signature in his 
 own handwriting, to wit "obert Moore." 
 Opinion: The drawer was bound by his sig- 
 nature, Ijut if tiie signature created doubt as 
 to the genuineness in the mind of the drawee, 
 refusal of payment would be justified until 
 verification was obtained. Vol. 4, p. 020, 
 April, 1912. 
 
 349. (111.) The signature of a depos- 
 itor to a check made with a hectograph copy, 
 if imprinted by the depositor or by his author- 
 ity, is valid and binding; but the payor bank 
 would take the risk in paying the check where 
 the imprint was unauthorized, unless the de- 
 positor was negligent or agreed to not hold 
 the bank responsible in such case. Vol. 8, 
 p. 519, Dec, 1915. 
 
 350. (D. C.) A bank would not be li- 
 able in damages for refusing to pay a check 
 because the signature does not agree with the 
 one left with the bank when the account was 
 opened. Where signature on file is "J. 
 Brown Smith" a bank would be justified in 
 refusing to pay a check signed "J. B. Smith" 
 or "John B. Smith," even though genuine. 
 Vol. 4, p. 682, May, 1912. 
 
 351. (S. C.) A, who had power of at- 
 torney from B to sign checks for B, signed 
 B's name and refused to sign his own name 
 as attorney under B's name. Opinion: The 
 signature of B's name without adding "per 
 A attorney" is sufficient, although bank 
 would probably have a right to insist upon 
 the attorney's name being added. Vol. 5, p, 
 760, May, 1913. 
 
 Stale checks 
 
 See 1105 et seq 
 
 352. (Ariz.) A check dat^d October 10, 
 1911, was presented for pa^Tnent June 25, 
 1913. The drawee refused payment on the 
 ground that the check was "stale." Opin- 
 ion: The bank's refusal was justified. Until 
 the "reasonable time" rule of the Negotiable 
 Instruments Law is more fully interpreted 
 the exact period of time required to make a 
 check stale remains uncertain. Vol. 6, p. 
 207, Sept., 1913. 
 
 Stamping check "Paid" 
 
 For stamping check "payment stopped," 
 See 1259 et seq 
 
 353 (Neb.) A collecting bank stamps 
 checks "Paid" and receives payment from the 
 drawee. The question arises as to the re- 
 sponsibility of the stamping bank in cases of 
 
 44
 
 CHECKS— PAYMENT OF 
 
 [361 
 
 forged or unauthorized indorsements. Opin- 
 ion: In the event the checks have been in- 
 dorsed "for collection" or otherwise restrict- 
 ively indorsed so as to indicate that the col- 
 lecting bank is an agent and not an owner, 
 the "Paid" stamp would not be sulTicient 
 and the drawee should require an express 
 guaranty of genuineness for its protection. 
 Vol. 4, p. 302, Nov., 1911. See 300. 
 
 354. (S. Dak.) A l)ank receiving pay- 
 ment of a check stamped the same "Paid ;" 
 the drawee bank which paid the check ob- 
 jected to such stamp and questioned the au- 
 thority of the presenting bank to place it pn 
 the check. Opinion: The stamping of the word 
 "Paid" would seem to come within the rights 
 of the presenting bank and drawee's re- 
 fusal to pay because of objectionable stamp 
 would prol)ably be held unjustifiable. Vol. 
 6, p. 755, May, 1914. 
 
 Check issued to stranger payee 
 
 Sec ')'u ct scq 
 
 355. (111.) A person claiming to be the 
 payee of a cashier's check presents the same to 
 the bank, properly indorsed, without proof of 
 his identity and requests the issue of two 
 checks to the same payee in lieu thereof. The 
 bank seeks to know whether it can safely com- 
 ply. Opinion: The bank in the absence of 
 suspicious circumstances may rely on the pre- 
 sumption that the holder is rightfully en- 
 titled thereto, and may issue the substitute 
 checks to the same payee, without lial)ility 
 thereon in the event the stranger is not the 
 true payee and negotiates such checks upon 
 indorsement of the name of the payee. Should 
 the holder prove an impostor and if the in- 
 dorsement of the original check proved a for- 
 gery, the bank would, of course, be liable to 
 the true payee of the original ])ut would not 
 be liable upon forged indorsements of the 
 substitute checks. Vol. 10, p. 308., Oct., 
 1917. 
 
 Undated checks 
 
 356. (Ga.) A check, though not dated, 
 is a valid and negotiable order on the bank to 
 pay on demand, but the absence of date may 
 (although the point has not been decided) 
 afford justification f(U' drawee's refusal to pay 
 until reasonable time for inquiry as to age of 
 check, for. if check has been outstanding an 
 unreasonable length of time, pavment is at 
 bank's peril. Vol. 7, p. 98, Aug., 1914. 
 
 357. (N. Y.) An undated check is pre- 
 sented through the clearing house, and the 
 
 bank inquires as to its rights in paying same. 
 Opinion: An undated check is valid and ne- 
 gotiable under the Negotiable Instruments 
 Law, provided it is all right in other respects, 
 and should be paid upon presentment. Vol. 
 5, p. 241, Oct., 1912. 
 
 358. (N. Y.) A check is presented for 
 I)ayment, not bearing any date. The bank 
 questions whether the check should be paid 
 upon presentation. Opinion: Under the Ne- 
 gotiable Instruments Law "the validity and 
 negotiable character of an instrument are not 
 affected by the fact that it is not dated." 
 The undated check being a valid order to pay 
 on demand can be paid l)y the bank upon pre- 
 sentation. Vol. 3, p. 402, Jan., 1911. See 
 1144. 
 
 Return of cancelled vouchers wathout 
 receipt unsafe 
 
 359. (Ore.) Under the statement (new) 
 system as distinguished from the pass-book 
 (old) S3'stem the pass-book is simply used 
 for the entry of deposits, and the cancelled 
 vouchers with tbe list of amounts thereof 
 showing total and balance are returned to the 
 depositor without any entry in the pass-book, 
 the depositor receipting for the same. Any 
 bank which adopts this system would be un- 
 safe in mailing or otherwise parting with 
 possession of the cancelled vouchers before it 
 obtains a receipt therefor. It would not be 
 an impracticable method for a bank to make 
 a monthly statement and mail a notice to its 
 depositor to call and receipt for the same with 
 cancelled vouchers. Vol. 6, p. 268, Oct., 
 1913. 
 
 Effect of provision "with exchange" 
 
 S.'(_' 1004. 1(»()1 
 
 360. (Iowa.) A check drawn and pay- 
 able at the same place contained the words 
 "with exchange.'' The last indorser at- 
 tempted to collect 10 cents exchange in addi- 
 tion to the face amount of the check. Opin- 
 ion: The words "with exchange" have no ef- 
 fect as in this case there could be no exchange. 
 Vol. 4, p. 430, .Tan., 1912. 
 
 361. (Neb.) Where a check is drawn 
 and payable at one and the same place, the 
 words "with excliange" tberein are without 
 elToet and meaningless. Where A in New 
 York draws his check on his bank in New 
 York "with exchange" and mails it to a 
 payee in Omaha, Nebraska, it is presumably 
 the drawer's intention that the New York 
 bank should pay the exchange on Omaha so 
 
 45
 
 3G2J 
 
 DIGEST OF LEGAL OPINIONS 
 
 that tlie payee might receive the face amount; 
 but to carry out that intention tlie check 
 slioukl specifically provide "with exchange on 
 Omaha." Vol. 5, p. 411, Jan., 1913. 
 
 362. (S. Dak.) Where check is drawn 
 merely "with exchange" without specifying 
 exchange on another place, face of check is 
 proper sum payable. Vol. 4, p. 491, Feb., 
 1912. 
 
 Words and figures differ 
 
 363. (Ind.) A check is presented at a 
 bank drawn for $12 so stated in writing in 
 the body of the instrument, but the marginal 
 figures are stated $10.50. The bank teller 
 in cashing the check paid out $1G.50. 
 Opinion: The sum payable on the check was 
 $12, The Negotiable Instruments Act pro- 
 vides in part: "Where the sum payable is 
 expressed in words and also in figures, and 
 there is a discrepancy between the two, the 
 sum denoted by the words is the sum payable ; 
 but if the words are ambiguous or uncertain, 
 reference may be had to the figures to fix the 
 amount." Vol. 11, p. 390, Jan., 1919. 
 
 364. (Okla.) A check w^as drawn for 
 the written amount of eighty dollars, but the 
 marginal figures are $8.00 and the words 
 "not over ten dollars" were stamped thereon. 
 The instrument w^as negotiated for eighty 
 dollars, and that amount paid by the drawee. 
 The drawer refused to be charged with the 
 eighty dollars. Opinion: While no positive 
 
 conclusion can be arrived at as to whether 
 the drawee can charge the full amount to the 
 drawer's account, it seems probable that the 
 words "not over ten dollars" would be notice 
 to the drawee and protect the depositor. If 
 the drawee were held responsil>le, it is prol)- 
 able that it would have a right to recover the 
 excess from the bank receiving payment. 
 Vol. G, p. 685, April, 1914. 
 
 365. (S. C.) A bank refused to pay its 
 customer's check, which was written for "two 
 dollars" but which contained the marginal 
 figures of "$200," the credit balance of the 
 customer being $190. The drawer threat- 
 ened to sue the bank, although the latter had 
 tendered the $2 to the holder on the same day 
 the check was presented, which tender was 
 refused by request of the drawer. Opinion: 
 AAHiere there is a discrepancy between the 
 words and figures, the words control, but 
 the court may justify the bank's refusal to 
 honor the check because the figures are an 
 index of the sum payable in the body and 
 contributed to mislead the bank. Nominal 
 damages at" most might be awarded the cus- 
 tomer. Vol. 6, p. 757, May, 1914. 
 
 366. (Wyo.) A check was presented 
 for payment in which the figures read 
 $181.50 and the body of the check read One 
 Eighty One and 50-100, the hundred being 
 omitted. Opinion: It would be safe for a 
 bank to pay $181.50, because where the words 
 are ambiguous, reference may be had to the 
 figures. Vol. 4, p. 426, Jan.', 1912. 
 
 COLLECTION 
 
 Bill of lading draft 
 See 136 et seq, 247, 254 
 
 367. (La.) A bank through error 
 mailed a draft and an indorsed order bill of 
 lading to the consignee. The consignee ob- 
 tained the goods upon the bill of lading w'ith- 
 out paying for the draft. Opinion: The 
 bank is liable to its customer for the amount 
 of the draft on the ground of negligence. 
 Vol. 4, p. 556, March, 1912. 
 
 368. (N. Y.) A bank received from a 
 firm for collection a draft with a bill of lading 
 for a motor cycle attached. The firm by 
 letter agreed with its customer that the ma- 
 chine would be shipped subject to examina- 
 tion, but the bill of lading was silent on this 
 point. KnoAving that this condition ex- 
 isted, the bank on receipt of the customer's 
 
 deposit for the amount of the draft surrend- 
 ered the bill of lading. The customer pre- 
 sented the bill of lading, received and tried 
 the machine, but being dissatisfied there- 
 with returned it to the freight office and 
 received a new bill of lading. This he at- 
 tached to the draft and returning same to 
 the bank was repaid his deposit. The firm 
 lost the sale. Opinion: The collecting bank 
 is not liable for any neglect of duty. It had, 
 in the absence of contrary instructions, a 
 right to rely on the letter of the firm permit- 
 ting inspection as evidencing the agreement 
 between seller and prospective buyer, and to 
 construe this permission as extendmg to an 
 actual test and for that purpose to surrender 
 the bill of lading, safeguarding its principal 
 by requiring a conditional deposit to be re- 
 funded if the machine proved unsatisfactory. 
 
 46
 
 COLLECTION 
 
 375 
 
 Such deposit was not a payment of the pur- 
 chase price, the surrender of which would 
 have made the bank responsible. Vol. 5, p. 
 101, Aug., 1U12. See 250. 
 
 369. (Tex.) A bank receives for col- 
 lection a draft to which is attached a bill of 
 lading which allows inspection. The car has 
 not yet arrived. The bank questions whether 
 it shall hold for arrival of car or protest im- 
 mediately. Opinion: The better practice is 
 to hold the draft for a reasonable time before 
 presentment to permit of arrival and inspec- 
 tion. Vol. 4, p. 557, March, 1912. 
 
 Circuitous routing 
 
 370. (Mont.) A city in southern Mon- 
 tana is a conmiercial center for points along 
 two forks of a railroad running from there 
 south into Wyoming. A bank at the south- 
 ern end of one of these forks holds a check 
 on a town along the same line, a little distance 
 to the north. Instead of sending direct to 
 the town of the drawee, the check is for- 
 Avardcd to the central clearing point in south- 
 ern Montana. The question arises whether 
 this is reasonable diligence. Opinion: Such 
 circuitous method of presentment, although 
 declared negligent in some early cases, has 
 been held reasonable diligence by one court 
 under the Negotiable Instruments Act. A 
 special state statute legalizing the customary 
 mode of presentment through bank corres- 
 pondents is desirable in the interest of cer- 
 tainty. Vol. 2, p. 105, Sept., 1909. 
 
 371. (Pa.) ^Yhe^e a bank in Baltimore, 
 holding for collection a check on an interior 
 city in Pennsylvania, mails same to its Pitts- 
 burgh correspondent and the latter after 
 making the collection defaults as to the pro- 
 ceeds, the routing through Pittsburgh instead 
 of direct to an agent in the city of the drawee 
 is not negligent. Vol. 6, p. 209, Sept., 1913. 
 
 372. (S. Dak.) A bank in South Da- 
 kota receives from the payee a check drawn 
 on a bank eighteen miles distant. Instead of 
 forwarding direct to a bank in the drawee's 
 town, the collecting bank mails the check to 
 its Chicago correspondent and it reaches the 
 drawee by a circuitous route. Payment was 
 refused and the notice of dishonor docs not 
 reach the payee until live days after the payee 
 delivered the check. Did the collecting l)ank 
 exercise due diligence? Opinion: Under 
 the state statute which defines due diligence 
 in making collections, the collecting bank 
 did in this case exercise due diligence in 
 adopting such method of presentment. The 
 
 payee is responsible as indorser. Vol. 3, p. 
 144, Sept., 1910. 
 
 Selection of correspondent 
 
 373. (Ind.) A check drawn by B on a 
 bank in South Dakota was deposited by the 
 payee M in an Indiana bank, and was for- 
 warded to a Louisville, Kentucky bank, 
 thence to a Chicago bank, thence to a central 
 South Dakota bank, which forwarded it to 
 another South Dakota bank at the place of 
 the drawee. The drawee paid the check and 
 charged it to the accoimt of the drawer and 
 the collecting South Dakota bank remitted 
 therefor by its draft, which was not paid be- 
 cause of the failure of such bank. Opinion: 
 In case of loss, it would fall upon the payee 
 j\I, the owner of the check, and not upon any 
 of the banks which handled the check for col- 
 lection. The authorities of Indiana, Ken- 
 tucky, Illinois and South Dakota hold that 
 the collecting bank is not responsible, pro- 
 vided it uses due diligence in selecting a suit- 
 able correspondent. In South Dakota the 
 payee M would have a preferred claim against 
 the receiver. Vol. 4, p. 554, March, 1912. 
 
 374. (Miss.) In ^Mississippi the bank 
 undertaking the collection of paper merely 
 undertakes to use due care in selecting a sub- 
 agent and in transmitting the paper, and is 
 not responsible for the defaults of corres- 
 pondents, if duly selected, who arc not its 
 agents but the sub-agents of the owner of the 
 paper. Vol. 6, p. 90, Aug., 1913. 
 
 375. (Wis.) An item is entrusted for 
 collection by bank No. 1 to bank No. 2 and 
 by the latter to bank No. 3, and there is a 
 loss caused by the negligence of bank No. 3. 
 The question is asked whether bank No. 1 
 can hold bank No. 2, which has not been neg- 
 ligent, or must look to bank No. 3 with which 
 it has had no direct dealings. Opinion: In 
 some states a l)ank undertaking a distant col- 
 lection is an independent contractor liable 
 for the defaults of the correspondents wliom 
 it selects, unless such liability is changed by 
 agreement, while in other states, including 
 Wisconsin, such bank merely undertakes to 
 use due care in selecting a sub-agent and in 
 transmitting the paper, and is not responsible 
 for the acts or defaults of the latter. In 
 Wisconsin bank No. 1 would have to look di- 
 rectly to l)ank No. 3, which under such rule 
 is its sub-agent. It is quite customary for 
 banks in states where tlie rule first stated 
 prevails, to change tiieir legal liability in this 
 regard by notices or contracts printed on their 
 literature to the effect that in receiving out- 
 
 47
 
 376 
 
 DIGEST OF LE(JAL OPINIONS 
 
 of-to\vn items they act as a^ent only and dis- 
 (;laiin iesponsil)ility for acts and defaults of 
 correspondents wliere didy sele(;ted. Vol. 11, 
 
 p. (;:;}, June, i!)r.>. 
 
 Liability for default of correspondent 
 
 376. (Ala.) A l)ank in Alabama casliiM' 
 for its customer a draft drawn on a hank in 
 Florida and forwarded the item to A, its cor- 
 respondent, for collection. A forwarded to 
 its correspondent hank B, which collected 
 from the drawee and failed before its draft 
 in remittance could he paid. Opinion: Bank 
 A, whether located in Alabama or Florida 
 (the location not being given), is not respon- 
 sible for the default of Jiank B, provided B 
 is a duly selected correspondent, because 
 under the law of both states a collecting bank 
 is not responsible for the default of sub- 
 agents. If the Alabama bank received the 
 check as agent for collection, it can charge 
 the amount back to its customer's account. 
 The authorities conflict on the question 
 whetlier the holder of B's dishonored draft in 
 remittance has a preferred claim against B's 
 receiver. Vol. 7, p. 218, Oct., 1914. 
 
 377. (Conn.) A bank in Connecticut 
 received as collecting agent a check on a bank 
 in Tennessee, which it forwarded to its cor- 
 respondent, a Philadelphia bank. The cor- 
 respondent in turn forwarded the item to its 
 correspondent, the C bank, which collected 
 from the drawee. Afterwards the C bank 
 failed and its draft in favor of the Philadel- 
 phia bank Avas protested. Opinion: In Penn- 
 sylvania and Connecticut the collecting bank 
 is not liable for the correspondent's default, 
 if duly selected. The owner of the check 
 probably has a preferred claim against the 
 failed bank. Vol. 6, p. 685, April, 1914. 
 
 378. (Miss.) A bank in Mississippi re- 
 ceived for collection a check drawn on a bank 
 in Louisiana. The check was sent to the 
 Bank of C of New Orleans, which in turn 
 sent the item to the bank of D. The bank of 
 D failed after it had collected of the drawee. 
 Opinion: Under the Mississippi law the Miss- 
 issippi bank, taking the check not as owner 
 but as a collecting agent, is not responsible for 
 the loss occasioned by the failure of the D 
 bank, and it can charge its depositors ac- 
 count. Under the Louisiana law the depos- 
 itor can collect from the C bank, wdiich is 
 liable for the default of its correspondent, 
 the D bank. Vol. 6, p. 433, Dec, 1913. 
 
 379. (N. J.) The bank of A in New 
 Jersey received for collection a clieck drawn 
 
 on a bank in Arkansas. The check was sent 
 to B bank of Philadelphia, which in turn 
 sent it to its correspondent in St. Louis. The 
 St. Louis bank forwarded it to tiie bank of 
 C, which collected the amount of the drawee 
 and later failed. Opinion: In New Jersey 
 the hanlv of A is liable for default of corres- 
 ])ond('nt. As no such liability exists in 
 Pennsylvania and Missouri, the sole redress 
 of the bank of A is against the failed bank. 
 Vol. 6, p. 511, Jan., 1914. 
 
 380. (N. M.) A bank receiving a check 
 for collection forwarded the same to its cor- 
 respondent, the X bank of El Paso, Texas. 
 The Texas bank forwarded the item to its 
 correspondent, which collected from the 
 drawee and failed before remitting. Opin- 
 ion: In Texas tlie El Paso bank is liable for 
 the default of its correspondent, in the ab- 
 sence of an agreement relieving it from such 
 liability. In no event is the drawee which 
 paid the check responsible. Decisions of 
 other states conflict. Vol. 4, p. 554, March, 
 1912. 
 
 381. (Okla.) A check drawn on the H 
 bank of Texas was deposited by the payee 
 in an Oklahoma bank and was forwarded to 
 the M bank of Texas, thence to the F bank of 
 Texas, thence to the C bank of Texas, which 
 forwarded it to another Texas bank at the 
 place of the drawee. The drawee paid the 
 check and charged the account of the drawer, 
 and the collecting Texas bank remitted there- 
 for its draft, but failed while the said draft 
 was in transit. Opinion: Under the Texas 
 decisions a bank is liable for the default of 
 its correspondent and the loss would fall upon 
 the C bank, unless it had protected itself from 
 such default by an agreement. Assuming 
 all of the Texas banks were thus protected, 
 the question of responsibility for the loss 
 would arise between the Oklahoma bank and 
 the pa3-ee. Until the Oklahoma courts adopt 
 either the rule that the collecting bank is 
 liable for correspondents' defaults, or not 
 liable if a suitable correspondent is selected, 
 the question is uncertain. Vol. 4, p. G12, 
 April, 1912. 
 
 382. (Tex.) A bank in Texas received 
 from its customer an out-of-town check for 
 collection. The check was forwarded by it 
 to a bank in Fort \Yorth, Texas, and by it to 
 the E bank which in turn presented the in- 
 strument and received payment from the 
 drawee. Before remitting the proceeds to 
 the Fort Worth bank the E bank failed. On 
 whom should the loss fall? Opinion: Lender 
 the law of Texas, a bank receiving an out-of- 
 
 48
 
 COLLECTION 
 
 389 
 
 town check for collection is an independent 
 contractor and is liable to its principal for the 
 defaults of subsequent banks to whom the 
 item is forwarded, unless, by stipulation, it 
 relieves itself from such liability. Vol. 10, 
 p. 47, July, 1917. 
 
 383. (Tex.) In Texas a bank receiving 
 
 a draft for collection at a distant point is re- 
 sponsible for the default of the correspond- 
 ent. Said collecting bank is treated as an 
 independent contractor and the subsequent 
 agents as its own and not the sub-agents of 
 the owner. Vol. 5, p. 379, Dec, 1912. 
 
 Disclaimer of liability for negligence 
 
 See 399 
 
 384. (Mo.) The validity of an agree- 
 ment, contained on a credit advice card and 
 remittance letter, that "when instructions to 
 the contrary are not given, items may be 
 sent to the banks upon which they are drawn" 
 as relieving the sending bank from respon- 
 sibility for loss through the failure of the 
 drawee presents an unsettled question upon 
 which the courts take different views. Vol. 
 4, p. 432, Jan., 1912. 
 
 Note: The Missouri legislature in 1919 passed 
 a law providing that the forwarding of items 
 direct to the payor shall be deemed due diligence. 
 
 385. (Ore.) A bank submits a form of 
 agreement to be signed by depositors, author- 
 izing the collecting bank to mail checks direct 
 to the drawee where there is only one bank 
 in the place. The agreement is as follows : 
 
 "Astoria, Oregon 
 
 To the First National Bank of Astoria : 
 Having deposited with you a check drawn 
 
 by on at 
 
 for $ , and there being no other bank 
 
 in the said town to which you can send this 
 cheek for collection, you are instructed to 
 send it direct to the bank on which it is 
 drawn, and I assume all responsibility for 
 any failure on your part to receive full and 
 final payment from the said bank, either by 
 failure of said bank to make returns or by the 
 return of a draft which you are unable to 
 collect." Opinion: In view of the numer- 
 ous decisions which hold sending to the 
 drawee negligent, such agreement might 
 possibly be held to contravene public policy 
 as a stipulation by the bank to be relieved of 
 its own negligence, but this would be an ex- 
 treme position in view of the fact that some 
 courts justify such method of collection and 
 the agreement would probably be held valid. 
 Vol. 2, p. 108, Sept., 1909. 
 
 XoTE: Tlie Oregon legi>latur.' in 1919 passed a 
 law providing tiiat the forwarding of items direct 
 to tlie i)ayor sliall be deemed due diligence . 
 
 Duty of collecting bank 
 
 S.-e 1097, 1118, 1119 
 
 386. (Ala.) A bank received for collec- 
 tion a check on which payment was refused 
 because not properly indorsed. The bank 
 returned the check for correction and in- 
 quired as to its liability for failure to request 
 certification, should the check afterwards be 
 protested for lack of sufficient funds. Opin- 
 ion: It is not unlikely that the courts might 
 hold that due diligence requires that the 
 collecting bank request certification before 
 returning the check for correction, for such 
 would seem the action a discreet person 
 would take in his own interest in an attempt 
 to insure ultimate payment. Although the 
 pa^'or bank is not obliged to certify, certifica- 
 tion in such case is a common practice. The 
 courts have not yet passed upon the precise 
 question whether it is the duty of a collecting 
 bank to request certification of an improperly 
 indorsed check before returning same for cor- 
 rection. Vol. 7, p. 33, July, 1914. 
 
 387. (Cal.) A check drawn by A in 
 favor of himself but not bearing his in- 
 dorsement, was forwarded by B bank to a 
 correspondent bank, which returned the item 
 to B bank for indorsement, without first 
 forwarding for payment by the drawee. 
 Opinion: The action of the bank as collection 
 agent was proper. Vol. 5, ]i. 100, Aug., 1912. 
 
 388. (Conn.) Bank A received a time 
 draft drawn on a party in the same state. 
 The item was forwarded to its correspondent 
 Bank B, which in turn forwarded it to its cor- 
 respondent Bank C, located in the same place 
 as the drawee. Bank C held the draft fifteen 
 days without presenting it for acceptance, but 
 l)rescnted it for payment at maturity, when 
 j)ayment was refused. Opinion: The collect- 
 ing bank must present a time draft for accep- 
 tance when received and is negligent if it 
 waits until maturitv and merelv presents the 
 draft for pavment". Vol. 8, p. 708. Feb., 
 1916. 
 
 389. (Kan.) A collecting bank for- 
 warded a siglit draft delivered in Kansas upon 
 a bank in Missouri to its correspondent, 
 whicli ]>rcsented the same to the drawee. In 
 the meantime the drawer hurried home and 
 stopped })ayment and the draft was protested 
 and returned. Opinion: The l)ank used due 
 diligence when it forwarded the draft in the 
 usual course, and its customer has no reason 
 
 49
 
 390 
 
 DIGEST OF LECJAL Oi'lMOXS 
 
 lo C()mi>laiii. In tlic nhsoiice of some special 
 reason or instruction given the collecting 
 hank, it was not inciuni)ent iii)on it in the ex- 
 ercise of due diligence to attempt to ])rocure 
 acceptance hy telegram. Vol. 4, p. 555, 
 March, 1912. 
 
 390. (N. M.) A Texas hank receiving 
 a note for collection forwarded it to a hank in 
 Utah, with specific instructions to have tlie 
 instrument collected hy that hank's attorney. 
 The Utah hank held the note for four months 
 hefore returning the same uncollected. 0pm- 
 ion: The Utah hank, having undertaken the 
 collection, must use reasouahle diligence, and 
 its retention of the note for four months 
 without advising the Texas hank is itself a 
 negligent act. If it can he proved that the 
 del)tor could have heen forced to pay by 
 ])rompt action, but has since become insolvent, 
 the Utah bank is liable for the amount of 
 damages proved. Vol. 8, p. 911, April, 1916. 
 
 Express company as collecting agent 
 
 391. (Ala.) A collecting bank forwards 
 items by express for collection wdiich it has 
 been instructed to have protested in the event 
 of non-payment ; the bank knows that the ex- 
 press company does not undertake to have the 
 items protested. Opinion: The company is 
 not a suitable agent for collection of protest- 
 able items and the bank is negligent in select- 
 ing such agent. Vol. 4, p. 218, Oct., 1911. 
 
 392. (Tenn.) The Interstate Commerce 
 Commission has not ruled that express com- 
 panies have no right to make collections. A 
 drawer has a right to insert words in his check 
 restricting the collection through specified 
 channels, as for example "Not valid if paid 
 through the Y Express Company." Vol. 3, 
 p. 674, May, 1911. See 325, 326, 327. 
 
 Following instructions 
 
 393. (Ala.) Where a bank holds for col- 
 lection checks upon itself without a deposit 
 against the same and receives a specific de- 
 posit from its customer to he paid upon a 
 later described check, its duty is to obey the 
 instructions and in so doing it incurs no lia- 
 bility to the owners of the checks which it 
 holds for collection. Where several checks 
 are received any one of which would be an 
 overdraft, the bank if it chooses can pay an 
 overdraft and apply a future deposit thereto. 
 Vol. 8, p. 909, April, 1916. 
 
 394. (Cal.) A bank in California for- 
 warded to another bank in the same state a 
 
 note payable in Iowa, which had matured 
 nearly ten years previously, with instructions 
 lo collect, obtain a new note, or place in the 
 hands of an attorney, and failing in any of 
 the foregoing, to return the note within ten 
 days of its receipt. The collecting bank 
 undertook the collection hut neglected to 
 follow the instructions, and returned the note 
 after it became outlawed, to the owner's dam- 
 age. Opinion: The bank is liable for such 
 damages as were caused by its neglect of duty. 
 The owner lost his remedy at law and his 
 prima facie damages are the full amount of 
 the note. Vol. 5, p. 664, April, 1913. 
 
 395. (Kan.) A bank forwarded to its 
 correspondent a draft with the following in- 
 structions : "This item is payable on presenta- 
 tion and is not to be held for arrival of goods, 
 for the convenience of the drawee or for any 
 other reason. If not paid on presentation 
 protest and return immediately, advising by 
 telegraph. Our customer will hold the col- 
 lecting bank strictly accountable for failure 
 to follow the foregoing instructions." The 
 item was properly protested and handled in 
 accordance with instructions, except that the 
 bank failed to wire the protest. Had the 
 sending bank paid out money in the trans- 
 action, would the collecting bank have been 
 liable ? Opinion : A bank acting as agent for 
 collection is under duty to follow special in- 
 structions with regard to the collection and 
 for any neglect to follow instructions, from 
 which damage results, it will be liable to its 
 principal. Vol. 11, p. 166, Sept., 1918. 
 
 396. (Pa.) A bank received three in- 
 dorsed notes for collection w4th instructions 
 to protest if not paid, and upon learning that 
 renewals had been forwarded, returned the 
 notes to its principal without protesting or 
 taking steps to hold indorsers. The renewals 
 were not received by the principal, and would 
 have been unacceptable if received, as upon 
 non-payment the principal intended to bring 
 suit against the maker and indorsers. Opin- 
 ion: The collecting bank is liable to its prin- 
 cipal for any loss sustained because of viola- 
 tion of instructions. Vol. 5, p. 100, Aug., 
 1912. 
 
 397. (Tex.) A draft is marked "no pro- 
 test," but the letter of instructions reads 
 "protest all items $10 and over unless marked 
 X," and there is no X marked on the letter 
 opposite the listed item. Opinion : It is safer 
 for the collecting bank to be governed by the 
 letter of instructions, as they are the instruc- 
 tions from the immediate principal. Vol. 4. 
 p. 556, March, 1912. 
 
 60
 
 COLLECTIOX 
 
 405 
 
 Forwarding paper direct to drawee 
 
 Note: A bill recommended by the American 
 Bankers Association which provides that the for- 
 warding of an item by a bank directly to the 
 payor shall be deemed due diligence and the fail- 
 ure of the payor bank to account for the proceeds, 
 shall not render the forwarding bank liable, 
 provided it has used due diligence in other 
 respects, became law in 191!) in the following 
 states: Michigan, Minnesota, iiissouri, Nevada, 
 New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, South 
 Dakota. A similar law was passed in Louisiana 
 in 1916 and in Montana in 1917. 
 
 398. (Ark.) A New York Itank sent a 
 check on the State Bank of G., Arkansas, to 
 a bank at H., Arkansas, which sent it to a 
 Little Rock bank. The latter sent it to its 
 Kansas City correspondent and the Kansas 
 City bank sent the check direct to the drawee, 
 receiving St. Louis exchange which was not 
 paid because of the failure of the G bank 
 drawee. Opinion: The Kansas City corres- 
 pondent was negligent in mailing the check 
 direct to the drawee and is responsible if the 
 loss is a result of this negligence. If, how- 
 ever, it can prove the check would not have 
 been paid if payment had been demanded by 
 an independent agent, it might escape liabil- 
 ity, for although negligent, no loss would have 
 resulted therefrom. Assuming the non-liabil- 
 ity of the Kansas City bank, the question of 
 negligence of the Little liock bank, and lia- 
 bility if loss resulted therefrom, depends upon 
 v.'hether the requirement of presentment with- 
 in a reasonalile time was violated by the cir- 
 cuitous method of forwarding, upon which 
 question the courts differ. Vol. 4, p. 494, 
 Feb., 1912. 
 
 399. (Ga.) A customer deposited for 
 collection a check drawn on a Texas bank. 
 The collecting bank mailed the item direct 
 to the drawee and failed to hoar from the 
 same for over two years, during which time 
 the drawee's name disappeared from the bank 
 directory. Depositor did not sign deposit 
 slip relieving bank from responsibility for 
 losses in the mail. Opinion: The collecting 
 bank was negligent and is liable to its cus- 
 tomer for the loss resulting. The sending 
 of the check direct to the drawee was a negli- 
 gent act and the presumption is the check 
 was received by the drawee and not remitted 
 for. But, assuming loss in mail, the failure 
 to promptly trace was negligence, and even if 
 depositor signed slip this would not relieve 
 the bank from the consequences of its own 
 negligence. Vol, 4, p. 154, Sept., 1911. 
 
 400. (111.) A bank in Illinois received 
 for collection certain checks which it for- 
 
 warded direct to the drawee, the only bank 
 in the place. The drawee remitted a draft 
 in payment, which was protested because of 
 the drawee's failure. Opinion: The sending 
 of the checks direct to the drawee, unless jus- 
 tified by custom, is such negligence as will 
 render the Illinois bank liable, whether it 
 took the paper as owner or as collecting agent. 
 As holder of the protested draft, it has no 
 preferred claim against the failed bank. Vol. 
 G, p. G28, March, 1914. 
 
 401. (La.) ]\railing a check direct to 
 the drawee is held an act of negligence in 
 Texas and other states, and if loss results the 
 sending bank is liable. Vol. 2, p. 19, Julv, 
 1909. 
 
 402. (Miss.) A bank sent a check re- 
 ceived for collection direct to the drawee. 
 The collecting bank received in payment the 
 drawee's draft, which was protested because 
 of the hitter's failure. Opinion: Sending 
 check direct to drawee is negligent and send- 
 ing bank is liable for resultant loss. Vol. 6, 
 p. 686, April, 1914. 
 
 403. (Mont,) The payee of a check de- 
 posited it in a bank for collection and the 
 bank mailed it to a correspondent, which 
 latter bank mailed check directly to tlie 
 drawee. After charging the amount to the 
 drawer, the drawee failed without remitting 
 to the correspondent. Opinion: The drawer 
 is discharged, the payee is relieved from re- 
 sponsil)ility and the correspondent of the first 
 bank is responsible because of mailing the 
 check direct to the drawee. Vol. 4, p, 2 IT, 
 Oct., 1!)11. 
 
 404. (N. Y.) A bank in Cleveland, to 
 whom a check had been forwarded for collec- 
 tion, mailed the item direct to tiie drawee in 
 Ohio, which hold it ten days and then re- 
 turned it un})aid and unprotested because the 
 drawee had failed. Opinion: The drawer is 
 discliargod to the extent of the loss caused by 
 tiie delay and the Cleveland bank is respon- 
 sible for its negligence. Vol, 6, p, 275, Oct., 
 1913. 
 
 405. (N, M.) A draft on a bank at 
 Clovis, New ^lexico, was deposited in a bank 
 at Las Vegas, forwarded to a bank at Kl 
 Paso, Texas, from thence to a bank at Tu- 
 cunuari, New Mexico, and I)y the latter for- 
 warded by niai! direct to the drawee I)ank at 
 Clovis. The Clovis bank paid the same bv 
 its own draft, wiiich was dishonored because 
 of the bank's failure. Opinion: The collect- 
 ing bank mailing the check direct to the 
 drawee and taking the worthless draft in pay- 
 
 51
 
 400 
 
 DIGEST OF LEGAL OPINIONS 
 
 raciit is resj)oiisible for the loss. Vol. G, p. 
 35, July, 11)13. 
 
 406. (Okla.) Tlic majority of courts 
 hold that mailing a clicck direct to the drawee 
 is imi)roi)or, even though the drawee is the 
 only bank in the place. There is need of 
 legislation defining due diligence in the pre- 
 sentment and collection of distant items in 
 accordance with legitimate banking customs. 
 Vol. 2, p. 73, Aug., 1909. 
 
 407. (Pa.) A collecting bank which 
 sends a check direct to the drawee for pay- 
 ment does not use due diligence and is liable 
 for any loss resulting. Vol. 6, p. 820, June, 
 1911. 
 
 408. (Pa.) A bank receiving for collec- 
 tion a check forwarded the same direct to the 
 drawee and not to its correspondent, for the 
 purpose of facilitating collection. The 
 drawee failed before its draft in payment 
 could be collected. Opinion: Sending check 
 to drawee is negligent and the collecting bank 
 is liable if loss results therefrom. Vol. 6, 
 p. 208, Sept., 1913. 
 
 409. (Tex.) A customer deposited for 
 collection a check which was forwarded by 
 mail by a correspondent bank in Dallas to the 
 drawee bank, being the only bank in the place. 
 The drawee sent the Dallas bank its draft, but 
 in the meantime failed. Opinion: Assuming 
 a custom can be proved of sending a check to 
 the drawee where the only bank in the place, 
 the Texas courts will probably hold the Dallas 
 bank free from negligence, and the customer 
 would have to look solely to the assets of the 
 drawee. Vol. 6, p. 34, July, 1913. 
 
 Insolvency of collecting bank 
 
 410. (Ala.) A check was forwarded ''for 
 collection and returns" and the collecting 
 bank failed after making the collection. 
 Opinion: The proceeds in the hands of the 
 failed bank are recoverable as a trust fund 
 provided their identity can be traced. ^Yhe^e 
 a failed bank in Alabama is not a trustee but 
 a debtor for collection proceeds, a creditor, 
 unless he is a depositor, is subordinated to 
 claims upon non-interest bearing deposits. 
 Vol. 8, p. 40, July, 1915. 
 
 411. (Del.) A bank in Delaware re- 
 ceived from its customer ''subject to final 
 payment" a check drawn on a trust company 
 in North Carolina, The check was for- 
 warded to a Baltimore correspondent, thence 
 to a bank in the same place as the drawee, 
 which collected from the drawee and failed 
 two d'Axs later without remitting. Opinion: 
 
 The amount is chargeable back by the Bal- 
 timore bank to tlie Delaware bank, and by the 
 latter to its customer, who, however, has a 
 claim upon the receiver of tlie failed bank for 
 the full proceeds as a trust fund. Under the 
 law of Maryland a collecting bank is not liable 
 for its correspondent's defaults, and this 
 would relieve tlic Baltimore Ijank. In Del- 
 aware, the point is not decided, but the credit 
 of the check "subject to final payment" would 
 relieve the Delaware bank. Vol. 9, p. 49, 
 July, 1916. 
 
 412. (Fla.) A check drawn on a Florida 
 bank is cashed in Kansas City, is forwarded 
 through the mail and the proceeds remitted 
 by the drawee to the last collecting bank, 
 w^hich fails before itself remitting. The 
 Kansas City bank seeks to recover from the 
 drawer. Opinion: When the proceeds w^ere 
 remitted by the drawee to the collecting bank, 
 this constituted payment which discharged 
 the drawer. The owner bank in Kansas City 
 which first cashed the check, would, therefore, 
 have no recourse upon the drawer but must 
 look to the assets of the failed bank for reim- 
 bursement. Vol. 9, p. 828, April, 1917. 
 
 413. (Kan.) A customer shipped a car 
 of corn and deposits with his bank a draft 
 drawn on the consignee with bill of lading at- 
 tached, with instructions that the same should 
 be sent to the First National Bank of X, 
 Kansas, for collection. The draft was col- 
 lected and remitted for by the collecting 
 bank's draft, which was dishonored because 
 of insolvency. Opinion: The customer's 
 bank because of the special instructions took 
 the draft not as owner but as agent for collec- 
 tion and can charge the amount back to the 
 customer. Although the customer received 
 credit for the draft, it would be regarded 
 merely as provisional, which could be re- 
 voked upon non-payment. The customer 
 would be entitled to payment of the proceeds 
 in full by the receiver of the collecting bank. 
 Vol. 1, p. 366, April, 1909. 
 
 414. (Mich.) An item drawn on B 
 bank sent for collection to C National Bank 
 in Michigan was collected and remitted for 
 by that bank's draft, which was dishonored 
 because of the bank's failure. Opinion: 
 Under the law of Michigan (the authorities 
 elsewhere being in conflict) bank owning 
 item collected is entitled to pa^-ment of pro- 
 ceeds in full bv receiver. Vol. 2, p. 417, 
 April, 1910. 
 
 415. (Mont.) Where A deposits money 
 in H bank to pay a draft which is forwarded 
 
 52
 
 COLLECTION 
 
 [424 
 
 by B to H bank for collection and II bank 
 applies money and sends its own draft in re- 
 mittance, which is dishonored because of its 
 failure, the loss falls on B, not on A. Vol. 
 5, p. 379, Dec, 1912. 
 
 Preferred claim against insolvent collect- 
 ing bank 
 See 373, 376 
 
 416. (Wash.) A bank took a check for 
 collection and credit, but credit was not given 
 at the time of deposit and the returns were 
 not received until after the bank had failed. 
 Opinion: The depositor is entitled to the en- 
 tire proceeds. The check was deposited at a 
 time when the bank was insolvent and re- 
 mains the property of the depositor. ^""01. 7, 
 p. 387, Dec, 191-1. 
 
 417. (Wis.) A note was sent to the 
 First National Bank of X for collection, and 
 the amount was paid to said bank at matu- 
 rity, by a check against the account of one ^M 
 in said bank. Two days later )the bank 
 failed. The receiver forwarded to the owner 
 the draft of the First National Bank of X 
 which had been drawoi for the purpose of re- 
 mitting for the collection. Opinion: The 
 owner of the draft has no preferred claim 
 against the insolvent bank, there being no 
 increase of the bank's assets by the trans- 
 action. Vol. 2, p. 484, May, 1910. 
 
 Collection of draft covering interstate 
 shipment of liquor 
 
 418. (Mo.) A bank collecting a draft 
 with a warehouse receipt for intoxicating li- 
 quor attached, coming from another state, 
 would not violate Section 239 U. S. Criminal 
 Code, under which, according to a Federal de- 
 cision in N'orth Dakota, it is unlawful for a 
 bank to collect a bill of lading draft covering 
 an interstate shipment of intoxicating liquor. 
 A^ol. 5, p. 169, Sept., 1912. 
 
 419. (Pa.) Section 239 of the United 
 States Criminal Code makes it criminal for 
 a bank to collect a draft with a bill of lading 
 attached covering a shipment of intoxicating 
 liquor from one state to another. Vol. 4, p. 
 C14, April, 1912. 
 
 Items received oy insolvent banker 
 
 420. (Va.) Where a private banking 
 firm receives paper for collection, knowing at 
 the time that it is insolvent and will not be 
 able to make a return. Opinion expressed 
 that this is such fraud as will entitle the de- 
 
 positor of the items to reclaim the same or 
 their full proceeds from the receiver or as- 
 signee. Vol. 3, p. 522, March, 1911. 
 
 Lien on paper forwarded 
 
 421. (W. Va.) The bank of A received 
 for collection from the bank of C, which 
 thereafter failed, a note drawn by B and in- 
 dorsed in blank by the payee, "Pay to the 
 order of any bank, banker or trust company." 
 Opinion: This form of indorsement indi- 
 cated that the bank of C was not tiie owner 
 but the collecting agent for the note. A bank 
 therefore acquired no right of lien upon tlie 
 paper for an indebtedness to it of the bank of 
 C. A^ol. 6, p. 372, Nov., 1913. 
 
 422. (W. Va.) The bank of A received 
 from the bank of C for collection a draft 
 drawn by B, both banks having mutual deal- 
 ings. After the C bank had failed the draft 
 was paid and the A bank, having no knowl- 
 edge from the form of the draft that the C 
 bank was not the owner, credited the latter 
 bank with the amount. Opinion: Unless the 
 A bank knew that the C bank was the col- 
 lecting agent of the drawer, it had a lien upon 
 the paper or its proceeds for a balance of 
 account due from the failed bank. Vol. 6, 
 p. 91, Aug., 1913. 
 
 Liability for not turning over proceeds 
 
 423. (Ind.) Where J gave D his check 
 to take up a note upon which J was surety 
 and after the check had been paid, the collect- 
 ing bank returned tlie money to the drawee 
 because the latter claimed payment had been 
 made by mistake, and that J had counter- 
 manded it. Opinion: That such collecting 
 bank is liable to D for tlie money so collected, 
 and that this liability would exist, even 
 tliough the note for which the check was 
 given was based on an illciral consideration. 
 Vol. 1, p. 60, Aug, 1908. 
 
 Recovery of proceeds paid in advance of 
 collection 
 
 424. (N. Y.) A New York bank re- 
 ceived for collection a chock drawn on Bank 
 A of N'orth Carolina and forwarded it to its 
 Kaleigh correspondent. The Ealeigh bank 
 forwarded the item to its correspondent, 
 Bank B, which collected from the drawee. 
 The Raleigh bank took its correspondent's 
 draft as cash and in advance of collection re- 
 mitted to the New York bank. Bank B 
 failed and its draft was dishonored. Opin- 
 ion: In North Carolina a collecting bank is 
 not liable for its correspondent's default, if 
 
 53
 
 425 
 
 DICIEST OF LEGAL OPINIONS 
 
 duly selected, and in the absence of ne^'li- 
 <,^'nce on the part of the IJaleigli bank and 
 iniless ])aynK'nt of the i)r()cee(ls led the New 
 York bank to do somethint; whicli if repay- 
 ment was made would result to its injury, the 
 ])aymcnt by the Haleigh bank is not iiiuil but 
 can be recovered as money paid by mistake 
 without consideration. Vol. 4, p. 91, Aug., 
 IDIL 
 
 Charging note against subsequent deposit 
 
 425. (Ohio.) A bank received for col- 
 lection a note payable at the same bank and 
 the maker's account is insuflficient at matu- 
 rity. The maker made a subsequent deposit, 
 sufficient to meet the past due instrument. 
 Opinion: The bank should not charge the 
 instrument against the subsequent deposit 
 without express instructions from the maker. 
 Vol. 5, p. 309, Nov., 1913. See Notes pay- 
 able at bank, 1007 et seq. 
 
 Duty to trace unacknowledged items 
 
 426. (Ark.) A collecting bank which re- 
 ceives and forwards an item to a correspond- 
 ent which is not acknowledged or remitted 
 for in due course, must promptly trace such 
 item and notify its principal, and a delay of 
 47 days is unreasonable and will make the col- 
 lecting bank responsible to its principal for 
 the loss. Vol. 11, p. 557, April, 1919. 
 
 427. (Tex.) On July 31, 1918, a cus- 
 tomer deposited a check drawn on a bank in 
 L., Texas. The bank of deposit sent the 
 check as a cash item to its correspondent at 
 A., Texas, which at once sent it to the drawee 
 bank. On November 22, 1918, four months 
 later, the correspondent bank at A. reported 
 that the check had been lost between A. and 
 L. The correspondent bank contends that it 
 
 took the check subject to final payment and is 
 not responsible. Opinion: It is tiie duty of 
 a collecting bank to ascertain within a rea- 
 sonable time whether paper entrusted to it 
 for collection and transmitted by it to a cor- 
 respondent has been received by such corres- 
 pondent; and if not, to advise its customer of 
 such fact and it is liable for loss resulting 
 from its failure to do so. Just what consti- 
 tutes a reasonable time depends upon the 
 facts of each individual case. In a Kentucky 
 case a delay of eight davs was held to amount 
 to negligence. Vol. if, p. GIO, May, 1919. 
 
 Payment against uncollected funds 
 
 Ivflatioii of iMiik upon deposit of check. See 299 
 
 428. (Conn.) The majority of courts 
 hold (some decisions contra) that upon 
 credit to a depositor of a check indorsed in 
 blank, title passes to the bank and the de- 
 positor has an immediate right to check 
 against the credit unless there is a contrary 
 understanding or agreement based on (1) 
 general usage not to pay against uncollected 
 funds, (2) notice printed in pass-book or on 
 deposit slip, (3) special agreement with par- 
 ticular depositor, (4) crediting deposit as 
 paper and not as cash. Vol. 2, p. 333, Feb., 
 1910. 
 
 429. (111.) A bank credited its depos- 
 itor with a check on an out-of town point, 
 still uncollected. The depositor presented 
 his check against said item for certification. 
 Opinion: The bank is not obliged to certify 
 the check. Lender the law of Illinois, in the 
 absence of a contrary agreement or usage, a 
 bank becomes a debtor for deposited items 
 immediately upon credit, but the custom is 
 quite universal not to pay checks against such 
 credit prior to the collection of the items it 
 represents. Vol. 7, p. 1001, June, 1915. 
 
 CORPORATIONS 
 
 Power to indorse for accommodation 
 
 430. (N. J.) As a general proposition 
 no corporation in any state, in the absence of 
 statutory authority, has power to make or in- 
 dorse paper for accommodation. Such paper 
 is valid and enforceable only in the hands of 
 a holder taking the same before maturity, in 
 good faith and without notice. Vol. 8, p. 
 250, Sept., 1915. 
 
 Failure to adopt by-laws 
 
 431. (Miss.) A corporation transacts 
 business without adopting any by-laws. The 
 corporation becoming involved in damage 
 
 suits and approaching insolvency questions 
 the validity of its corporate acts by reason of 
 the omission. Opinion: When the govern- 
 ing statute in express terms confers upon a 
 corporation the power to adopt by-laws, the 
 failure to exercise the power will be ascribed 
 to mere non-action, which will not render 
 void any acts of the corporation which would 
 otherwise be valid. Vol. 5, p. 6<o8, April, 
 1913. 
 
 Nature of unpaid dividends 
 
 432. (N. J.) "Where a dividend has been 
 declared, but remains unpaid, conflicting 
 
 54
 
 COEPORATIOXS 
 
 439 
 
 authorities reviewed showing view more gen- 
 erally prevailing to be (a) if dividend special- 
 ly set apart or segregated it is a trust fund, 
 ]iot liable for debts of corporation, and in 
 event of insolvency unpaid stockholder is 
 ])roi'erred to common creditor, but (b) if not 
 specially set apart it remains property of cor- 
 poration, liable for its debts and unpaid 
 stockholders not preferred in case of insolv- 
 ency. Some courts, however, hold that mere 
 declaration constitutes a trust fund without 
 special sesreaation. Vol. 6, p. 373, Xov., 
 1913. See 212, 221, 228, 237, 238. 
 
 Right of purchaser of stock to dividend 
 
 433. (N. Y.) A man purchased stock 
 through a brokerage firm. After the stock 
 had been sold, and before it had been trans- 
 ferred on the company's books, a dividend 
 was declared and the check mailed to the 
 previous owner. The brokerage office claims 
 the check should be given to the new owner. 
 Opinion: Where a dividend is declared after 
 stock is sold, it belongs to the purchaser, 
 although the transfer has not been recorded 
 on the books and the company has paid the 
 dividend to the person appearing on its books 
 as the ovnaev. Vol. 10, p. 660, March, 1918. 
 
 Signature to corporation note 
 
 434. (Me.) An order, note or agree- 
 ment was signed "John Smith Company, 
 John Smith, Treasurer," without the prefix 
 "by" before "John Smith." Opinion: Such 
 form of signature is generally held to be the 
 signature of the corporation alone (such is 
 the case in Maine) although in one or two 
 states it has been held to import an obligation 
 both of the company and John Smith indi- 
 vidually. Vol. 5, p. 755, May, 1913. 
 
 435. (N. Y.) A corporation note was 
 executed as follows : 
 
 $1,000 Buffalo, N. J., June 4, 1911. 
 
 On demand after date, mc promise to pay 
 to the order of oiirselves at the First National 
 Bank, Buffalo, X. Y., one Thousand Dollars. 
 Value received with interest. Home Hard- 
 ware Co. IT. I. Jones, Trcas. Indorsed 
 Home Hardware Co., H, I. Jones, Treas. 
 The question was raised as to the personal 
 liability of H. I. Jones, thereon. Opinion: 
 A note reading "We promise to pay" signeil 
 "Home Hardware Co., H. I. Jones, Treas." 
 is generally held to be the note of the 
 corporation alone equally as if the word 
 "by" were prefixed to the name of the treas- 
 urer and the latter is not personally liable. 
 
 The point has not yet been decided in Xew 
 York. Vol. 4, p. 306, Xov., 1911. 
 
 436. (N. Y.) Where the name of the 
 corporation is not designated as the sole 
 promisor in the body of the note and it is 
 signed merely "John Jones," Treasurer," the 
 weight of authority is that the word "Trea- 
 surer" is merely descriptive of the person and 
 not of the character of the liability and that 
 Jones will be personally liable. Had John 
 Jones in the above case signed "As Treasur- 
 er," without disclosing his principal he would 
 not have been shielded from personal liabil- 
 ity. Vol. 3, p. 466, Feb., 1911. 
 
 437. (N. Y.) Where a corporation note 
 simply reads "I" or "We" promise to pay, 
 \\ithout reciting in the body of the promise 
 that "The Smith Manufacturing Co." pro- 
 mises to pay, the form of the signature whicli 
 should be used by an officer authorized to 
 sign, in order to free himself from personal 
 liability, should be either "The Smith Man- 
 ufacturing Co. by John Jones, Treasurer," 
 or "For the Smith Manufacturing Co., John 
 Jones, Treasurer." Vol. 3, p. 466, Feb., 
 1911. 
 
 438. (N. C.) According to the weight 
 of authority a note signed "Doe ilanufactur- 
 ing Company, John Doe, President, Jim Doe, 
 Treasurer," is held to be the obligation of the 
 corporation alone, although the word "by" or 
 "per" is not prefixed to the signature of the 
 officers, but in a few states where the form of 
 the note reads "we promise to pay" the sig- 
 nature would be prima facie evidence binding 
 both corporation and officers individual! v. 
 Vol. 7, p. 386, Dec, 1914. 
 
 Voting control by fraction of share 
 
 439. (Wash.) A corporation organized 
 with a capital stock of 1,000 shares at $100 a 
 sliare has three shareholders. A, B and C. 
 A owns two certificates for 499.80 shares and 
 40 sliares, totaling 500.20 shares, as against 
 li and C, the owners of two certificates of 
 2l!).90 each, totaling 499.80 shares. The 
 question is raised as to whether A could con- 
 trol the cor)>oration l)y a fraction of a share. 
 Opinion: The control of the corporation 
 would be held to rest in A because he is the 
 majority stockholder. A single share is the 
 voting unit and a fraction of a share cannot 
 be voted in the absence of an express provi- 
 sion therefor in a statute or by-laws of the 
 corporation. But if A was unable to exercise 
 control by inability to vote the fraction, a 
 court of equitv would doubtless enforce his 
 rights. Vol. 7, p. 995, June, 1915. 
 
 55
 
 440 
 
 DRJEST OF LEGAL OPIIS'IONS 
 
 Voting power of stockholder 
 
 See li2."i, 242, 2V.i 
 
 440. (Wash.) At common law each 
 stockliolder in a corporation has one vote, ir- 
 respective of the number of shares lield l)y 
 
 him. This has been changed by statute in 
 most states, which hohl tiiat tlie stockholder 
 has one vote for each share of stock owned by 
 him, and in some states cumulative voting is 
 ])rovided for. Vol. 7, p. 995, June, 1915. 
 
 DEATH AND DECEDENT'S ESTATE 
 
 Payment of deposit to administrator 
 
 441. (Kan.) A bank refused to pay a 
 chock drawn against the account of its de- 
 ceased depositor until further evidence of the 
 drawer's authority. The drawer, wlio was 
 the administrator, claimed that the indorse- 
 ment of the bank through whom the check 
 was presented was sufficient assurance that 
 he had been legally appointed administrator. 
 Opinion: A bank has the right to demand the 
 production of letters of administration before 
 paying the deposit of a decedent upon check 
 of one claiming to be administrator. Vol. 
 10, p. 852, June, 1918. 
 
 Right to credit decedent's account 
 
 442. (N. J.) Several certified checks 
 payable to a decedent were offered for deposit 
 to the credit of the decedent's account by one 
 of the executors, prior to the qualification of 
 the executors under the will of the decedent. 
 Opinion: A bank whose customer has de- 
 ceased may properly, in the interests of his 
 estate and before an executor or administra- 
 tor has qualified, receive money or checks 
 offered by a debtor of the decedent and place 
 them to the credit of his account, but until 
 the bank has been duly authorized to receive 
 such money or receive and collect such checks, 
 payment of the latter would not be a dis- 
 charge of liability to the estate and the payors 
 would, in the event of the failure of the bank, 
 remain liable to the estate. Vol. 5, p. 245, 
 Oct., 1912. 
 
 443. (N. Y.) A owes a customer of the 
 bank, who is deceased, and wishes to deposit 
 the amount in the hank for him. The ques- 
 tion is whether the amount should be credited 
 to the account of the decedent or to the ac- 
 count of his estate. Opinion: Strictly the 
 bank has no right to receive the deposit to the 
 credit of the estate unless authorized by the 
 legal representative. But it might be con- 
 venient for the bank to credit it to the estate 
 to be held for and paid to the representative. 
 Vol. 5, p. 176, Sept., 1912. 
 
 Deed for annuity 
 
 444. (Okla.) A, the owner of a tract of 
 land, proposes to deed it to B upon the condi- 
 tion that B pay A an annuity of $1,000 during 
 A's lifetime, and thereafter upon A's death 
 to continue the annuity to C during C's life- 
 time. A wishes to construct the proper form 
 of deed. Opinion: The deed could be drawn 
 with a condition subsequent incorporated 
 therein by the use of the words "upon condi- 
 tion" with a clause providing for the reentry 
 of A or his heirs upon the land on the breach 
 of such condition. Vol. 5, p. 104, Aug., 
 1912. 
 
 Delivery of deed after death 
 
 445. (Mo.) A widow with two children 
 owns land, and does not want to make a will. 
 She proposes to make deeds to each child, 
 which she can hold until her death and then 
 have them delivered to the two children. 
 Opijiion: Deeds executed by the grantor to 
 her two children and held by her with inten- 
 tion that tliey shall be delivered after death 
 would be ineffectual, if not delivered during 
 her lifetime, to pass title to the grantees. 
 A"ol. 10, p. 380, Nov., 1917. See 499. 
 
 Disposal of funds of intestate by bank 
 
 446. (N. J.) A New Jersey bank asks 
 how to dispose of funds which it has on de- 
 posit in the name of a depositor who died 
 intestate, his only survivors being a son and 
 a former wife who was divorced and re- 
 married in his lifetime. Opinion: The mar- 
 ried woman is not the widow of the deceased, 
 and the only surviving son is entitled to the 
 entire deposit under the provisions of the 
 New Jersey statutes. Vol. 10, p. 598, Feb., 
 1918. 
 
 Authority to renew notes of testator 
 
 447. (Pa.) In the absence of statute or 
 of express authority in the will, an executor 
 would have no power to bind the estate of the 
 testator by making, as executor, a new note 
 in renewal of one made by the testator or by 
 renewing indorsements on notes originally in- 
 
 56
 
 DEATH AXD DECEDEXT'S ESTATE 
 
 455 
 
 dorsed by the testator, and such acts bind 
 only the executor personally. No such stat- 
 ute exists in Pennsylvania. Vol. 7, p. 104, 
 Aug., 1914. 
 
 Heir's note for decedent's debt 
 
 448. (111.) A widow and daughter of 
 the decedent gave their notes to a bank in 
 part payment of a note of the decedent which 
 the bank neglected to prove against the de- 
 cedent's estate within the time required by 
 law. Opinion: The authorities are in con- 
 flict whether such notes of widow and daugh- 
 ter, receiving assets of the estate, given in part 
 pa3'ment of a note of the decedent, outlawed 
 by non-claim, are supported by a sufficient 
 consideration and enforceable. In Illinois, the 
 question is yet to be litigated. Vol. 5, p. 
 375, Dec, 1912. 
 
 Payment of check after drav^er's death 
 
 See 004 
 
 449. (Mass.) The death of a drawer 
 revokes the authority of a bank to pay his 
 outstanding checks, and payment by the bank 
 after knowledge of the death of the drawer is 
 unauthorized, but the bank is protected where 
 it pays the clicck in ignorance of the death. 
 A statute in ^Massachusetts, however, author- 
 izes a bank to pay a check of a depositor, not- 
 withstanding his death, if presented within 
 ten davs after date and tliis applies to nation- 
 al banks. Vol. 7, p. 307, Nov., 1914. 
 
 450. (N. C.) Except where a contrary 
 rule is provided by statute and in the few 
 states where check is an assignment, death of 
 drawer of check revokes bank's authority to 
 pay, although if bank pays in ignorance of 
 death it is protected. Vol. 5, p. 523, Feb., 
 1913. 
 
 Note: Rule that clicck is assignment has been 
 abrogated by Negotiable Instrument Law, passed 
 in all states except Georgia. 
 
 451. (Wash.) While the common law 
 rule estal)lisbed l)y tlie weight of authority in 
 this country is that death of tlio principal 
 revokes an agent's authority and payment 
 thereafter to the agent, even though in ignor- 
 ance of such death, does not discharge the 
 obligation, the courts whicli administer such 
 rule admit its harshness, and some courts 
 have made an exception wliere a bona fide 
 payment is made in ignorance of the princi- 
 pal's death. The New York Court of Ap- 
 peals in a recent decision has declared in 
 view of long-established custom that payment 
 of a check by a banker in ignorance of the 
 
 drawer's death constitutes an exception to 
 the common law rule and is valid, and the 
 reasoning of the court would lead to a like 
 conclusion where payment of the check of an 
 attorney in fact is made in ignorance of the 
 principal's death. It is reasonable to assume 
 that courts in future cases will so hold. Vol. 
 11, p 1G4, Sept., 1918. See 4G2. 
 
 452. (Ga.) A Imsband, critically ill, 
 drew and delivered to his wife a check for "all 
 of my deposit." The husband died and the 
 wife is likely to present the check. Opinion: 
 The bank would be safe in paying the wife 
 after the husband's death, on the ground that 
 the check constituted an assignment of the 
 entire deposit, and its delivery completed a 
 gift causa mortis, by virtue of which the de- 
 posit belonged to the wife and not to the 
 husband's estate. Vol. 5, p. 661, April, 1913. 
 
 453. (Idaho.) A check draw^l on a 
 I)ank in Oregon was given in pajinent for 
 goods sold and delivered. The check in due 
 course reached the drawee bank which re- 
 fused payment on the ground that the drawer 
 was dead. Opinion: The death of the drawer 
 operated as a revocation of the authority of 
 the bank to pay liis check. Vol. 6, p. 434, 
 Dec, 1913. 
 
 454. (Kan.) The death of the drawer 
 revokes the bank's authority to pay his check 
 except where the check is an assignment, or 
 the statute expressly authorizes pa\iuent dur- 
 ing a limited time after the drawer's deatli; 
 but where the bank pays in ignorance of 
 the death it is protected. In Kansas a check 
 is not an assignmeiit — the Negotiable Instru- 
 ments Law expressly provides the contrary. 
 Vol. 5, p. 107, Aug., 1912. 
 
 455. (111.) Several checks of a decedent 
 were presented for payment at the bank, 
 wliere the depositor had sufficient funds. The 
 bank, having received notice of the depositor's 
 death, refused payment and was sued by one 
 of the holders. Opinion: Under the Nego- 
 tiable Instruments Law of Illinois the bank 
 was not liable to the holder on the narrow 
 ground that death of drawer revoked the 
 bank's authority to pay and on the broader 
 ground that the bank owed no duty to the 
 holder. Death of the drawer revokes the 
 authority of a bank to pay his checks wherever 
 the rule prevails that a check is not an assign- 
 ment, except in a few states where special 
 statutes authorize payment within a limited 
 period after death. Vol. 5, p. G59, April, 
 1913. 
 
 57
 
 456] 
 
 DIGEST OF J.ECJAL Ol'lMOXS 
 
 456. (Mass.) In Massaclmsctls Ji bank 
 is iiiilliorizcd lo pay a clicck after the draw- 
 er's (loalh within ten days (and a savings 
 bank within thirty days) after its date. A 
 check is dated June 3, and ten days would 
 bring it to the 13th, but that day being Sun- 
 day, wouhl the 14th, Monday, be considered 
 the 10th day? Opinion: The authority does 
 not extend the time limited, although the last 
 dav falls on Sunday. Vol. 9, p. !)04, May, 
 11)1 7. 
 
 457. (Minn.) In Minnesota, by a recent 
 decision of the Supreme Court, a check op- 
 erates as an assignment and the death of the 
 drawer does not revoke the authority of the 
 bank to pay. Vol. 4, p. 610, April, 1912. 
 
 Note: This rule is overturned by tlie Negotiable 
 Instruments Act passed in Minnesota in April, 
 1913. 
 
 458. (Pa.) In the absence of a statute, 
 the death of the drawer revokes the bank's 
 authority to pay the draw^er's checks, and 
 payment after knowledge of the death is un- 
 authorized. Vol. 3, p. 276, Nov., 1910. 
 
 459. (S. C.) In South Carolina, where 
 the rule prevails that a check is an assign- 
 ment, a check is payable by a bank to a bona 
 tide holder notwithstanding the death of the 
 drawer before its presentation for payment. 
 Vol. 6, p. 434, Dec, 1913. 
 
 Note: Tliis rule is overturned by the Negotiable 
 Instruments Act jiassed in South Carolina in 
 March, 1914. 
 
 460. (S. Dak.) Under the Negotiable 
 Instruments Act a check is not an assignment 
 and death of the drawer revokes the author- 
 ity of the bank to pay his outstanding checks, 
 in the absence of a special statute authorizing 
 the bank to pav within a limited period after 
 death. Vol. 6^, p. 434, Dec, 1913. 
 
 461. (W. Va.) A gave B his check in 
 the afternoon and died that evening. B pre- 
 sented the check the next morning. Opin- 
 ion: The death of the drawer revokes the au- 
 thority of the bank to pay his check and pay- 
 ment with notice or knowledge of death is 
 at the bank's peril in the absence ot a statute 
 providing for payment after death of the 
 drawer. Such a statute exists in West A'^ir- 
 ginia but is applicable only to savings banks. 
 Ohio has no statute on the subject. Vol. 8, 
 p. 420, Nov., 1915. 
 
 Power of attorney affected by death 
 
 462. (Tenn.) A depositor gave instruc- 
 tions to her bank that checks against her ac- 
 
 count should be signed cither by herself or 
 by lier nephew signing her name by him. 
 Jler nephew presented checks signed in the 
 usual manner, but before payment the bank 
 learned of its customer's death. The bank 
 refused payment but questions whether if the 
 checks had been paid in ignorance of the de- 
 l)ositor's death it would have been protected. 
 Opinion: The general rule at common law 
 is that a power of attorney, unless coupled 
 with an interest, is revoked by tiie principal's 
 death. The Appellate Division of the New 
 York Supreme Court has held that payment 
 by a bank to an agent under power of attor- 
 ney after the priiicipal's death does not bind 
 the estate, although the bank was ignorant 
 of the death at the time of payment. Under 
 the existing conditions of law there is con- 
 siderable danger and risk to banks which pay 
 checks signed under power of attorney in case 
 of unknown death of principal. Doubtless 
 in many states the courts would not hold to 
 the rule of the common law in all its rigor 
 but would apply equitable principles and hold 
 that payment to the attorney after death of 
 the jDrincipal and before notice thereof would 
 be valid. Vol. 4, p. 558, March, 1913. See 
 451, 1074. 
 
 Transfer of stock of decedent 
 See 1340 
 
 463. (N. J.) A bank holds stock as col- 
 lateral security for a loan made to a person 
 since deceased, with power to transfer on the 
 back of the certificate, duly executed by the 
 decedent. The bank is about to transfer but 
 is advised that new powers must be executed 
 by the administrator of the estate, since the 
 death of the principal terminated the bank's 
 authority. Opinion: Bank holding stock as 
 security for loan with power to transfer on 
 back of certificate, has right to transfer of 
 stock notwithstanding death of borrower, 
 since power to transfer being coupled with an 
 interest is not revoked by death of the giver of 
 the power. Vol. 10, p. 466, Dec, 1917. 
 
 464. (Okla.) The adminstratrix of an 
 estate is entitled to the transfer of the de- 
 cedent's stock upon delivering to the bank 
 an authenticated copy of the letters of ad- 
 ministration, but where there is no will and 
 no administrator appointed the next of kin is 
 not entitled to the transfer in the absence of 
 a court order. Vol. 9, p. 347, Nov., 1916. 
 
 58
 
 474 
 
 DEPOSITS 
 
 Assignment of deposit 
 
 465. (N. Y.) There is nothing in the 
 law which will prevent a national bank in 
 New York State from making a loan to a 
 depositor in a savings bank and taking an 
 assignment of his deposit evidenced by his 
 savings bank-book as security. But as a 
 savings bank-book is not a negotiable instru- 
 ment, notice of the assignment should be 
 given to the savings bank to safeguard it 
 against subsequent withdrawals, which might 
 be effected by the depositor upon the claim of 
 loss without production of the book. Vol. 9, 
 p. 50, July, 1916. 
 
 466. (Ore.) In the case where a depos- 
 itor has been paid a savings deposit under 
 false claim of loss, an assignee to whom the 
 depositor had assigned his deposit would have 
 no rights against the bank. A savings pass- 
 book is not a negotiable instrument and an 
 assignee takes no greater rights than the as- 
 signor. Vol. 9, p. 826, April, 1917. 
 
 467. (Pa.) A deposit account in a na- 
 tional bank or a trust company may be as- 
 signed by the depositor like any other debt or 
 chose in action, and the assignment is Ijinding 
 upon the bank when notified thereof. Vol. 
 6, p. 435, Dec, 1913. 
 
 Use of assumed name 
 
 468. (Cal.) A woman, married a second 
 time, desired to open an account in a bank 
 under her former name. Opinion: It would 
 be lawful and proper to receive the married 
 woman's account under her former name, 
 provided the purpose is honest and not fraud- 
 ulent. Vol. 7, p. 898, May, 1915. 
 
 Bank not obliged to receive deposits 
 
 469. (N. J.) A bank is under no obli- 
 gations to receive deposits from undesirable 
 persons and may close an accoimt at any time 
 it chooses by tendering to the depositor the 
 amount due and declininii' to receive more. 
 A'ol. 5, p. 590, ]\rarch, 19 13. 
 
 470. (Ala.) A customer opened a small 
 checking account with a ])ank. The bank 
 later discovered that the customer was a pro- 
 fessional forger and questions its legal right 
 to close the account. Opinion: A l)ank, un- 
 like a common carrier, has power to select 
 its customers and may refuse to receive a 
 deposit of a particular customer or can close 
 
 an account out at anv time bv tendering the 
 amount due. Vol. 4,^p. G88, May, 1912. 
 
 Banks as depositaries 
 
 Ste 210 
 
 471. (Wash.) Moneys belonging to In- 
 dians on Reservations under the supervision 
 of an agency may be deposited in either state 
 or national banks which submit bids therefor, 
 giving the rates of interest on open accounts 
 and time deposits and otherwise complying 
 with certain requirements. Vol. 7, p. 689, 
 March, 1915. 
 
 Deposit for safe-keeping 
 
 472. (Wis.) A bank which undertakes 
 the safe-keeping of securities or valuables for 
 a customer, either gratuitously or for hire, 
 as by receiving rental of safe deposit boxes, 
 is not an insurer against loss by fire, burglary 
 or theft, but in the absence of special contract 
 of hire which would define the terms of lia- 
 bility is under duty to exercise reasonaljle care 
 in the safe keeping of property. Where the 
 bank is a gratuitous bailee it is responsible for 
 gross negligence, and where it receives com- 
 pensation it is responsible for ordinary neg- 
 ligence. Vol. 5, p. 065, April, 1913. See 
 186. 
 
 Nature of deposit slip 
 
 473. (Ala.) B deposited in a bank $: 3.- 
 44, and transferred to D a deposit ticket, 
 which read : "deposited and pending settle- 
 ment with D." B claimed he owed D $55.44, 
 wliereas D claimed B owed him $73.44. The 
 bank refused to honor the deposit ticket pre- 
 sented by D. Opinion: A deposit slip given 
 l)y a bank to a depositor is simply an ack- 
 nowledgment of the receipt of money and its 
 delivery by the depositor to a third person 
 does not operate to assign the deposit. Vol. 
 8, p. 806, March, 1916. 
 
 474. (N. Dak.) A duplicate deposit 
 slip showing a deposit of $10 currency was 
 issued to a depositor who checked against the 
 account and obtained cash from A, thereby 
 exhausting the credit. Thereafter the depos- 
 itor meets B and obtains $10 cash from him 
 on the original deposit slip. Opinion: B 
 cannot hold the bank. The duplicate deposit 
 slip is merely evidence of a receipt of de- 
 posit on a stated date. It is not a binding 
 obligation or promise of the bank to pay the 
 
 59
 
 475] 
 
 DIGEST OF LEGAL OPINIONS 
 
 amount to the transferee of the deposit slip, 
 like a negotiable certificate of deposit. Vol. 
 5, p. 176, Sept., 1912. 
 
 475. (N. M.) The payee of a check 
 leaves it with the teller of the drawee hank 
 for safe keepin<i^ and states it is not to l)e pre- 
 sented for a few days })cnding the consum- 
 mation of a contract hetwoen tlie drawer and 
 the payee. The teller issues a deposit slip 
 therefor but does not credit the check to 
 the payee's account and afterwards the con- 
 tract fails of consummation and the drawer 
 does not provide funds suiTicient to cover the 
 chock. Tlic bank asks if it is liable on ac- 
 count of having given the deposit ticket, for 
 checks drawn by the payee. Opinion: The 
 bank is not lial)le for the amount to the payee 
 and has the right to refuse payment of the 
 latter's check drawn against such conditional 
 deposit. The deposit slip is in the nature of 
 a mere receipt subject to explanation. Vol. 
 10, p. 782, May, 1918. 
 
 476. (Okla.) A deposit ticket or entry 
 of deposit in a pass-book made by one in 
 authority in the bank is evidence that the 
 amount has been received as a deposit by the 
 bank at the time stated, but like any other 
 receipt it is only prima facie and not con- 
 clusive evidence, and may be explained by 
 other evidence or shown to have been issued 
 by mistake. It is not a binding obligation 
 or promise of the bank to pay the amount. 
 Vol. 3, p. 677, May, 1911. 
 
 Disclosure of customer's balance 
 See 172 et seq., 503 
 
 477. (La.) Where a check was pre- 
 sented and refused for insufficient funds, the 
 bank is not obliged to disclose the amount to 
 the credit of the customer by making part 
 pajTuent nor to receive from the holder or 
 anyone other than the drawer or his agent, a 
 deposit sufficient to make the check good. 
 Vol. 7, p. 896, May, 1915. 
 
 Deposit by one person crediting account 
 of another 
 
 478. (Ark.) Money is deposited in a 
 bank by A to the credit of B with instructions 
 to pay on check of A. The bank seeks to 
 know whether it can without liability cash A's 
 checks in the absence of authority from B to 
 honor such checks. Opinion: Where money 
 is deposited in a bank by A to the credit of B 
 with instructions to pay on check of A, the 
 bank can safely honor A's check only in the 
 event it is assured the deposit belongs to A 
 
 and has been put in B's name simply for con- 
 venience. If the money Ijolongs to B and 
 has been deposited by A as his agent, tlie bank 
 cannot safely pay A without express author- 
 ity from B. It would Ite unsafe for bank to 
 pay A without first ascertaining the true 
 owner of the money. Vol. 11, p. 171, Sept., 
 1918. 
 
 479. (N. J.) Where a bank carries a de- 
 posit to the credit of "A Agent" for certain 
 heirs. Opinion that upon death of A his 
 agency is revoked and deposit is payable to 
 A's principals and not to his administrator. 
 Rule is different where deposit is in name 
 of "A trustee for B," in which case it may be 
 paid to administrator of A, except where 
 changed by statute. Vol. 6, p. 273, Oct., 
 1913. 
 
 Guaranty fund of depositors 
 
 480. (Okla.) Where a deposit in an Ok- 
 lahoma state bank represented by interest- 
 bearing certificate is included in the daily 
 average upon which annual assessment is 
 levied, and it bears no greater rate of interest 
 than is permitted by the Commissioner, the 
 depositor is protected by the Depositor's 
 Guaranty Fund equally as if his deposit is on 
 open account subject to check. Vol. 7, p. 
 581, Feb., 1915. 
 
 Deposit made outside of bank 
 
 481. (Md.) A depositor on his way to 
 the bank delivered to one of the bank clerks 
 a deposit consisting of cash and checks tied 
 up in a package. When the clerk arrived at 
 the bank, it was discovered that there was 
 $100 less than the amount indicated on the 
 deposit slip. The depositor claims that the 
 full amount was turned over and that the 
 bank should stand the loss. Opinion: It is 
 essential that a depositor should deliver his 
 deposit at the bank to one authorized to re- 
 ceive same, and if he delivers the deposit to 
 an officer or agent away from the bank, he 
 makes the latter his o^vn agent and takes the 
 risk of the monev reaching the bank to his 
 credit. Vol. 11, p. 43, July, 1918. 
 
 482. (Pa.) A customer claimed to have 
 given the cashier of a bank a deposit of money 
 away from the bank, which is denied by the 
 cashier. The customer had no receipt for 
 the deposit. Opinion: The customer cannot 
 hold the bank liable because (1) it is difficult 
 to prove the receipt of the money by the cash- 
 ier and even if proved (2) the cashier had 
 no authority to receive deposits away from 
 
 60
 
 DEPOSITS 
 
 491 
 
 the bank, according to the weight of judicial 
 opinion, and the bank is not liable unless the 
 money was delivered to the bank to the credit 
 of the customer's account. Vol. 4, p. 210, 
 Oct., 1911. 
 
 Deposit of military company 
 
 483. (Iowa.) Funds of a military com- 
 pany are deposited in a bank under the name 
 "Company Fund— (Officer's Name)." The 
 officer is transferred to another company and 
 the regiment is miles away. The new com- 
 manding officer writes the bank for a state- 
 ment of the account. Opinion: Where the 
 fimds of a military company are deposited in 
 a bank by its commanding officer and such 
 officer is succeeded by a new commander, the 
 latter is entitled to control the deposit as the 
 representative of the company. It would 
 seem perfectly proper to send the new com- 
 mander a statement of the accoimt, but the 
 bank should have satisfactory evidence of his 
 authority to control the fund. Vol. 11, p. 
 94, Aug., 1918. 
 
 Mistaken payment of deposit 
 See 1052 et seq 
 
 484. (Mont.) Where a bank erroneous- 
 ly credited its depositor with $G00, which 
 the depositor drew out, it is not precluded 
 from suing and recovering judgment against 
 him for the amount, provided it can prove 
 the mistake. Vol. 3, p. 523, March, 1911. 
 
 485. (Pa,) Wliere a bank credits a de- 
 posit to the wrong account and the amount is 
 checked out, the bank can recover the amount 
 from the depositor as having been paid l)y 
 mistake, without consideration. Vol. 5, p. 
 106, Aug., 1912. 
 
 Payment on oral order 
 
 486. (Colo.) A having an account in 
 bank came to the bank in person and ver- 
 bally in the presence of the bank officials 
 ordered the bank to jiay B $300 after certain 
 conditions were complied with. The condi- 
 tions were performed and B was paid the 
 money, A claimed that the oral order was 
 not binding and should have been in writing. 
 Opinion: The bank is entitled to require a 
 check or other written order from the custom- 
 er to pay a deposit, but if it is willing to and 
 does pay on the customer's oral order, the 
 payment is valid and chargeable, assuming 
 the bank can prove such order. Vol, 5, p. 
 827, June, 1913. 
 
 Deposit by partnership 
 See 334, 708 
 
 487. (Cal,) Under the firm name of 
 "Smith Bros," a partnership opened an ac- 
 count in a bank. By agreement with the 
 bank the signature "Smith Bros," was to be 
 used on all checks and notes, drawn by either 
 partner. Opinion: The signature "Smith 
 Bros," as the firm name to checks and notes 
 is legally sufficient without adding the name 
 of the individual partner who signs the firm 
 name. Vol, 5, p. 26, July, 1912. 
 
 488. (Wash.) A and B are partners 
 and open an account in a bank in the name 
 of "The Star Grocery," subject to the signa- 
 ture of A or B. A dies. Opinion: B can 
 draw checks against the partnership account 
 and the bank would not be liable to the heirs 
 of A for the money thus paid. Vol. 7, p. 
 581, Feb., 1915. 
 
 Postal savings 
 
 489. (111.) State banks which are non- 
 members of the Federal reserve system may 
 be depositories of postal savings funds under 
 certain specified conditions, namely, if mem- 
 ber banks fail to qualify to receive such de- 
 posits or in the event there are no member 
 banks in the same city; otherwise, where 
 there are one or more member banks in the 
 city where postal savings deposits are made, 
 the law provides that such deposits shall be 
 placed in such qualified member banks. Vol. 
 10, p. 379, Nov., 1917. 
 
 Note: The law at the present time remains un- 
 changed. 
 
 490. (Wis.) The law of Wisconsin 
 prohibits a bank from pledging its assets as 
 security for deposits. It is somewhat doubt- 
 ful whether bonds borrowed l)y the bank could 
 be lawfully pledged as security for postal 
 savings deposits. Vol. 4, p, 153, Sept,, 1911. 
 
 Public deposits 
 
 491. (Ky,) A national bank to secure 
 public deposits deposited United States cou- 
 pon bonds with the Treasurer of the United 
 States, The Treasurer without the consent 
 of tbe national bank cancelled the coupon 
 bonds and substituted registered bonds, tbere- 
 by causing the bank an actual loss of $350, 
 Opinion: No statutory authority exists to 
 convert the coupon bonds into registered 
 bonds as in the case of bonds to secure circu- 
 lation. In the absence of an authorizing 
 statute or the express consent of the depos- 
 itor of the bonds, the conversion would 
 
 61
 
 492 
 
 DIGEST OF LEGAL OPINIONS 
 
 afford a basis of a claim for damages. 
 8, p. 1015, May, 1916. 
 
 Vol. 
 
 Reserve against savings deposits 
 
 492. (Wash.) Under the banking law 
 of Washington all banks are required to main- 
 tain a reserve of twenty per cent, of their de- 
 mand liabilities. The state examiner holds 
 savings deposits to be demand liabilities and 
 the banks carrying savings deposits question 
 this ruling, for wliile savings deposits are in 
 a sense demand liabilities, they can be held 
 subject to notice of withdrawal. Opinion: A 
 construction of the law that a savings deposit 
 subject to notice is not a demand liability is 
 not unreasonable in view of the purpose for 
 which reserve is required. The opinion of 
 the Attorney General should be requested 
 construing the law, or, in the event of an un- 
 favorable opinion, the banking law should be 
 amended expressly providing a separate and 
 smaller reserve against savings deposits. 
 The ordinary demand for such deposits does 
 not warrant such a high percentage of reserve, 
 and the bank is protected by its right to re- 
 quire notice of withdrawal. Vol. 4, p. 617, 
 April, 1912. 
 
 Note: The banking law of Washington has been 
 amended (1915) so as to read: "Every bank and 
 trust company doing business under this act, shall 
 have on hand at all times in available funds, not 
 less than fifteen per cent. ( 15% ) of its total de- 
 posits." 
 
 Specific deposits 
 
 See 2, 393, 787, 1222 
 
 493. (Fla.) A customer closed his ac- 
 count and left the sum of $350 with the bank 
 for the specific purpose of paying two out- 
 standing checks, one for $250 and one for 
 $100. Afterwards his checks of $50 and $75 
 were presented and paid, leaving insufficient 
 funds to meet both outstanding checks. 
 Opinion: The mistake of the bank in paying 
 the checks out of the specific deposit was due 
 to the action of the customer and the bank 
 w^ould not be held responsible therefor. A 
 deposit for the purpose of paying specified 
 checks is no longei" a general one, subject to 
 check, but is a specific or trust deposit, appli- 
 cable solely to the payment of such specified 
 checks, and not to be appropriated in any 
 other manner, but in this case payment was 
 justified. Vol. 2, p. 21, July, 1909. 
 
 Mistaken credit to account 
 
 494. (Ariz.) A. Doe, a member of the 
 firm of Doe and Doe, and who also conducted 
 
 an independent business, deposited checks to 
 the credit of the firm, but tlie bank mistak- 
 enly credited the amount to A. Doe's personal 
 account. Before the mistake was discovered 
 A. Doe sold his business to a successor, in- 
 cluding his credit in bank. Opinion: The 
 bank has a right to charge the amount back 
 to the depositor's account, unless the depos- 
 itor, relying on the truth and accuracy of the 
 statement of account rendered him by the 
 bank, is led to act to his detriment in a man- 
 ner he would not have done but for his faith 
 in the correctness of such statement, then the 
 bank is bomid to stand the loss. The right of 
 the bank to hold A. Doe liable would depend 
 on whether he would be prejudiced by the 
 mistake if compelled to pay the money back. 
 Vol. 7, p. 896, May, 1915. 
 
 495. (Miss.) M bank erroneously cred- 
 ited a deposit to N bank instead of to H bank, 
 and rendered a statement of account from 
 time to time to H bank, which was acquiesced 
 in for seven years without objection, during 
 which time N bank became defunct. Opin- 
 ion: After a reasonable time the accounts 
 rendered became accounts stated, subject to 
 correction only for fraud or mistake. The 
 seven years' delay of the H bank by which 
 the M bank was prejudiced in its recourse 
 upon the N bank, was such laches as would 
 preclude the H bank from questioning the 
 correctness of the account. Vol. 7, p. 386, 
 Dec, 1914. 
 
 Giving cash instead of credit for deposited 
 item 
 
 496. (Ore.) A depositor brought to the 
 bank for credit a check for $550. After the 
 clerk at the window made out the deposit 
 ticket, the depositor asked for $250 cash 
 to be taken out of the check and returned 
 to him. The clerk thereupon wrote upon 
 the deposit ticket "cash $250'' and sub- 
 tracted that amount, leaving a total of $300, 
 ^vhich amount was placed to the credit of 
 the customer. The bank afterwards delivered 
 to him his balanced pass-book showing the 
 amount credited and the depositor retained 
 the book for over a 3ear without objection. 
 Afterwards he denied receiving the $250 cash. 
 Opinion : The fact that the customer retained 
 the balanced pass-book for over a year with- 
 out objection makes the balance an account 
 stated, which is conclusive unless the depos- 
 itor can show fraud, mistake or omission. If 
 the depositor impeaches the account, the bank 
 can show facts connected with the deposit. 
 In cases where a customer at the time of de- 
 
 62
 
 DEPOSITS 
 
 503 
 
 posit wants the whole or part cash, it would 
 be better for the bank to enter credit for the 
 entire deposit and have the customer draw a 
 check for the cash in the regular way. Vol. 
 5, p. 28, July, 1912. 
 
 Time deposits 
 
 See 282 
 
 497. (Pa.) A savings deposit evidenced 
 by pass-book requiring thirty-five days* 
 notice of withdrawal but providing that the 
 bank may waive the notice, is a time deposit 
 within the definition of Section 19 Federal 
 Eeserve Act as further defined by Regulation 
 D, Series of 1916, But a certificate of de- 
 posit payable on return and "thirty-five days 
 demand if required" is not a time certificate 
 as defined by Eegulation D, although a court 
 might hold that it came within the definition 
 of time certificates provided by Section 19 of 
 the Act Vol. 9, p. 907, May, 1917. 
 
 Trust funds 
 See 410, 432, 668, 1191 
 
 498u (Ark.) Dfeposits skve held by a 
 trust company, acting as executor, guardian 
 and depository. In the event of failure, the 
 tendency of the courts is to class such de- 
 posits as general indebtedness and not to give 
 the claimant a preference unless (1) such 
 funds are kept separate and specially marked 
 as trust funds, or (2) where the organic law 
 provides that funds so held shall be preferred 
 to commercial deposits or general creditors. 
 In Arkansas the beneficiary would only come 
 in for a pro rata share with the other depos- 
 itors, unless the funds were kept separate and 
 marked as trust funds. Vol. 7, p. 98, Aug., 
 1914. 
 
 499. (N. J.) Under a decision of the 
 New York Court of Appeals a deposit by A in 
 trust for B is revocable at will until the de- 
 positor dies, or unless he completes the gift 
 in his lifetime by some unequivocal act such 
 as delivery of the pass-book or notice to the 
 beneficiary. Under a New Jersey decision, 
 such deposit in trust was held testamentary 
 in character and would not be effectual unless 
 made in accordance with the statute of wills. 
 Vol. 3, p. 334, Dec, 1910. 
 
 500. (N. Y.) A bank carrying an ac- 
 count for John Doe, Trustee, or John Doe, 
 Agent, does not inquire as to the identity of 
 the cestui que trust or principal, nor as to 
 the extent of John Doc's authority. Th(( 
 question arises whether banks are safe in 
 
 carrying such accounts without making 
 inquiry. Opinion: It is unlikely the New 
 York courts will go to the extent" of holding 
 that where John Doe deposits checks payable 
 to himself as agent or trustee, the bank is 
 under duty of inquiry for whom he is acting 
 or the extent of his powers ; the presumption, 
 according to the weight of authority else- 
 where, is that Doe is acting honestly and 
 within his powers. It would be only where 
 the bank has knowledge of additional facte, 
 as where a trustee check is g4ven for a person- 
 al debt to the bank, or where two accounts, 
 an individual and trustee, are carried, and a 
 deficit in the individual is made good from 
 the trustee account, or where there are other 
 suspicious facts, that the bank would be put 
 upon inquiry. But it might be safer, in view 
 of the uncertainty in the New York law, es- 
 pecially where numerous transactions arp 
 carried through such an account, to make in- 
 quiry as to the person for whom Doe is acting 
 and the extent of his authority. Vol. 5, p. 
 440, Jan., 1913. See 328 et seq, Official 
 checks for private use. 
 
 501. (Pa.) Under the laws of North 
 Carolina, guardians, trustees and other fidu- 
 ciaries may invest trust funds in United 
 States securities and in consolidated bonds of 
 the state. Vol. 3, p. 468, Feb., 1911. 
 
 Deposit in two names 
 
 See 1012 
 
 502. (N. J.) Where a deposit is made 
 in two names the certificate of deposit or 
 pass-book should read payable to A or B or 
 survivor, and under the law of New Jersey 
 applicalde to banks, trust companies and sav- 
 ings banks, the institution is authorized to 
 pay the survivor without administration. 
 Vol. 3, p. 587, April, 1911. 
 
 Unclaimed deposits required to be pub- 
 lished 
 See 172 et scq., 477 
 
 503. (N. M.) A Now ^fexico statute 
 rciiuiros national and state banks to publish 
 lists of doniiant and unclaimed deposits, with 
 a view to informing tlie heirs of deceased de- 
 positors of sucli deposits, failing which it 
 provides escheat of the money to the state. 
 Opinion: The state is probably without the 
 power to enforce such a statute against the 
 national hanks. In its application to state 
 banks, tlio statute is probably constitutional, 
 thougli it,s valid it v is not entirelv free from 
 doubt. Vol. 6, p.' 753, May, 1914. 
 
 63
 
 504 
 
 DIGEST OF LEGAL OPINIONS 
 
 Notice of withdrav/al of savings deposit 
 in national bank 
 
 504. (Pa.) There is nothing in the Na- 
 tional Bank Act which denies the right of a 
 
 national bank to rcfu.se payment on demand 
 and require thirty days' notice Ijcfore with- 
 drawal of a savings deposit where the pass- 
 })ook rules provide for such notice. Vol. 6, 
 p. 95, Aug., 1913. See 283. 
 
 DISHONOR 
 
 See Presentment of Instrument with Indorsement Lacking, 1131-1134: 
 
 Drawer's liability on unpaid draft 
 
 505. (Kan.) A bank in Kansas pur- 
 chased a sight draft on a Nebraska bank. 
 The draft was drawn by a depositor of the 
 Nebraska bank but was signed in his name 
 at his request by his cousin, who was a cus- 
 tomer of the Kansas bank. The draft was 
 dishonored. Opinion: The Kansas bank has 
 recourse upon the drawer only, and not upon 
 its customer who introduced the drawer and 
 signed the drawer's name to the draft on the 
 latter's request. Vol. 5, p. 108, Aug., 1912. 
 
 Wrongful dishonor of checks 
 
 See 1268 
 
 Note: The following law recommended by the 
 American Bankers Association has been passed in 
 the states below named: "No bank shall be liable 
 to a depositor because of the non-payment through 
 mistake or error and without malice of a check 
 which should have been paid, unless the depositor 
 shall allege and prove actual damage by reason 
 of such non-payment and in such event the liabil- 
 ity shall not exceed the amount of damage so 
 proved." 1915, Idaho, Montana, New Jersey, Ore- 
 gon; 1917, Californiaj 1919, Michigan, Missouri, 
 North Carolina, Ohio, West Virginia. 
 
 506. (111.) Where a bank through error 
 and without malice refuses to pay the check 
 of a customer dra^vn against suflRcient funds, 
 all the courts which have passed on the ques- 
 tion except those of New York hold that the 
 customer, if a merchant or trader, may re- 
 cover substantial damages without proving 
 actual damage. Where the customer is a 
 non-trader most cases require proof of sub- 
 stantial damage as a basis of recovery. The 
 best method to abrogate the rule that sub- 
 stantial damages will be presumed without 
 proof of actual damage would be in procuring 
 legislation which will provide that damages 
 will be limited to such as the customer can 
 prove. For collection of cases see Vol. 4, 
 p. 755, June, 1912. 
 
 Note: For legal decisions on this subject see 
 Vol. 6, p. 433, Dec, 1913. 
 
 507. (111.) A bank through error and 
 without malice refused to pay its customer's 
 check for $11.40, although in sufficient funds. 
 The clieck was presented a second time and 
 
 paid at the request of the payee, who stated 
 that the drawer's credit with him was not 
 damaged. The customer sued tlie bank for 
 $1,000 damages. Opinion: Assuming that 
 the customer was a merchant or trader, the 
 bank would probably be held liable for sub- 
 stantial damages, without proof of actual 
 damage or any malice on the part of the 
 banl'. Vol. 4, p. 755, June, 1912. 
 
 508. (La.) A depositor who was in the 
 habit of overdrawing his account made a 
 small deposit, for which a credit slip was 
 placed on file. Later in the day a check was 
 presented and payment refused although 
 drawn against sufficient funds. Opinion: 
 Assuming that the depositor was a trader, he 
 can recover damages for dishonor of the 
 check without proving special damage, but 
 the fact that he had been in the habit of over- 
 drawing his account could be used in mitiga- 
 tion of damages. Vol. 5, p. 832, June, 1913. 
 
 509. (Miss.) A bank, through a mis- 
 talce in its bookkeeping, refused the pajment 
 of two checks of its depositor, one for $10, 
 another for $"?5. The depositor sued the 
 bank for $10,000 for not paying his checks 
 when there were sufficient funds. Opinion: 
 The bank was liable to the depositor (1) if a 
 merchant or trader, for substantial damages 
 though no actual damage is proved; (2) if 
 not a merchant or trader, for such actual 
 damages as are alleged and proved. Vol. 7, 
 p. 222, Oct., 1914. 
 
 510. (Pa.) A customer who was a car- 
 penter threatened suit against a bank for fail- 
 ure to pay a check drawn against sufficient 
 fimds. The bank credited a deposit by the 
 customer to the wrong account through a 
 clerical error. Opinion: Where a check is 
 refused payment because of clerical error, and 
 the depositor is a merchant or trader, sub- 
 stantial damages are by most courts presumed 
 without his proving actual damages, but 
 where a non-trader, some courts hold he must 
 prove actual damage to recover anything 
 rnore than nominal damages. In Pennsyl- 
 vania the question has not been passed upon. 
 Vol. 6, p. 210, Sept., 1913. 
 
 64
 
 FORGERY 
 
 517 
 
 511. (S. C.) A bank received for de- 
 posit from its customer a check drawn on a 
 small country bank, and it immediately sent 
 the item to its correspondent bank for collec- 
 tion. The check was returned unpaid by the 
 correspondent and the bank collected the 
 amount from its depositor who in turn col- 
 lected the amount from the drawer. It after- 
 wards developed that the check had never 
 been presented. The drawer claims damages 
 for wrongful dishonor of the check on ground 
 
 that check was never presented. Opinion: 
 Where a check which has never been presented 
 is returned unpaid, implying lack of funds, 
 there is an injury to the credit of the drawer 
 for which the holder will be responsible to 
 him in damages. In this case the bank 
 would be held liable to the drawer for the 
 wrongful act of its correspondent and in turn 
 Avould have recourse on such correspondent 
 whose act caused the injury. Vol. 10, p. 
 3? a, Nov., 1917. 
 
 FORGERY 
 
 See Altered and Raised Paper, 82-110 
 
 Note: A statute recommended by the American 
 Bankers Association, limiting the time of liabil- 
 ity of a bank to its depositor for payment of 
 forged or raised checks, the time limit ranging 
 from thirty days to one year after the return of 
 the paid vouchers to the depositor, or in some 
 states after notice that they are ready for de- 
 livery has been passed in the following states: 
 California, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, 
 Maine, Massacliusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, 
 Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New 
 Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Da- 
 kota, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, 
 Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin 
 and Wyoming. 
 
 Bank bound to know depositor's 
 
 signature 
 
 See 280, 561, 563 
 
 512. (Iowa.) A bank is bound to know 
 the indorsement of its depositor as payee of 
 a certificate of deposit, similarly as in the case 
 of a signature on a check, and cannot recover 
 money paid to a bona fide holder on the for- 
 gery thereof. But this rule is based on and 
 limited to cases where the bank keeps a file of 
 the signatures of depositors to whom certif- 
 icates are issued, and where such signatures 
 are not kept the rule would not apply, and 
 money paid on a forged indorsement would 
 be recoverable. Vol. 6, p. 501, Jan., 1914. 
 
 513. (Kan.) The rule that a drawee is 
 bound to know the drawer's signature and 
 cannot recover money paid to a bona fide hold- 
 er on forgery thereof is supported by the fol- 
 lowing two underlying reasons: (1) The 
 drawee is in a better position than the holder 
 to judge as to the genuineness of the drawer's 
 signature. (2) The drawee bank should be 
 regarded as the place of final settlement of the 
 transaction of payment. A stipulation on 
 the face of the instrument providing that 
 "All indorsers guarantee that the maker's sig- 
 nature is genuine" does not alFect the nego- 
 tiability of the instrument, but extends the 
 
 existing liability of the indoreer upon a 
 forged check to subsequent holders to the 
 drawee. Vol. 7, p. 584, Feb., 1915. 
 
 514. (N. H.) The Massachusetts deci- 
 sions adhere with certain modifications to the 
 old rule established in the case of Price v, 
 Xeal, 3 Burrows 1354, that the drawee of a 
 draft is bound to know the drawer's signature, 
 and is precluded from recovering money paid 
 to an innocent holder upon a forgerv thereof. 
 Vol. 3, p. 146, Sept., 1910 . 
 
 515. (Ohio.) A bank is bound to know 
 the indorsement of its depositor as payee 
 of a certificate of deposit, similarly as in the 
 case of the signature on a check. Where a 
 bank paid a certificate of deposit upon tJie 
 forged indorsement of its depositor as pavce, 
 it is liable. Vol. 6, p. 89, Aug., 1913. 
 
 516. (Pa.) On June 17 a customer 
 deix)sited a check drawn on the Scranton 
 bank payable to the order of "cash" and 
 signed and indorsed with the name of A. B. 
 Jr., which })rovcd to be forged. On July 1 
 the bank receiving payment was notified and 
 asked to refund. Opinion: The rule that the 
 drawee is bound to know the drawer's signa- 
 ture and cannot recover money paitl on the 
 forgery thereof, has been changed by a statute 
 in Pennsylvania passed in 1840, permitting 
 recovery where there has been due diligence 
 in the discovery and notice of flie forgery. 
 In this case the drawee used due diligence. 
 The Xegotiablo Instruments Act has been 
 held in a recent case not to have repealed the 
 Act of 1849. Vol. 7, p. 105, Aug., 1914. 
 
 517. (S. Dak.) A bank received its de- 
 positor's check of $1,G00 and as a condition 
 of jiayment required that the drawer's signa- 
 ture I)e guaraTiteod by the holder liank. Opin- 
 ion: Apart from the exceptional case where 
 a depositor cannot write, the bank has no 
 right to require guaranty of the drawer's sig- 
 
 65
 
 518 
 
 DIGEST OF l.EUAL OPINIONS 
 
 nature to the check as a condition of payment, 
 and refusal to pay the genuine check without 
 such guaranty would be a dishonor for which 
 the bank would be liable to the drawer. Pay- 
 ment of the check, should the signature prove 
 to be forged, even though guaranteed by the 
 holder bank, could not be charged to the 
 drawer's account. Vol. 5, p. 657, April, 1913. 
 
 Payment of forged check not chargeable 
 to drawer 
 
 518. (Ala.) A drew his check for $27 
 to order of "John Jones.'* B, a merchant, 
 cashed the check for a merchant giving the 
 name of John Jones, and deposited and re- 
 ceived credit for the check with the drawee 
 bank. Two days later A notified the bank 
 that the check had been stolen and the in- 
 dorsement was a forgery. B claims there 
 was carelessness on the part of A and objects 
 to being charged with the amount. Opinion : 
 The check having been paid on a forgery of 
 the indorsement cannot be charged to the 
 drawer's account, and the drawee can recover 
 from the person receiving payment. The 
 amount is therefore chargeable to B. The 
 facts stated disclose no negligence on the part 
 of A, which would estop him from question- 
 ing the validity of the payment. Vol. 6, p. 
 760, May, 1914.. 
 
 Pajnnent chargeable where drawer 
 estopped 
 
 519. (Md.) A bank cashed a check 
 drawn by an insurance company upon an in- 
 dorsement of a fictitious payee forged by its 
 agent and cashed upon his identification. 
 The agent was in the habit of identifying the 
 payees of the company's checks, and of wit- 
 nessing their indorsements. Opinion: The 
 bank is responsible unless it could be shown 
 that the agent was acting within the scope of 
 his authority, in which case the company 
 would be estopped from asserting that the in- 
 dorsement was a forgery. Vol. 2, p. 482, 
 May, 1910. 
 
 520. (Minn.) A check was cashed for a 
 third person by the payee A in ignorance that 
 it bore his own forged signature as drawer 
 and was deposited by him in B bank and col- 
 lected from C bank upon which it was drawn, 
 A carrying an account in both banks. Opin- 
 ion: The check is chargeable by drawee bank 
 to A's account, he being estopped to assert the 
 forgery of his own signature. Vol. 7, p. 584, 
 Feb., 1915. 
 
 521. (Ala.) A depositor having know- 
 ledge that his signature was forged to certain 
 checks, which were returned to him as paid 
 vouchers by tlie bank, omitted for a consider- 
 able period of time thereafter to give the bank 
 notice. Opinion: It was the depositor's duty 
 to promptly notify the bank upon the discov- 
 ery of the forgery of the checks. Neglect of 
 such duty relieved the bank of liability, if it 
 can show resulting damage, and in some 
 jurisdictions the bank is absolved from 
 liability, irrespective of such damage. Vol. 
 9, p. 143, Aug., 1916. 
 
 522. (Neb.) A bank cashed a check of 
 $45 signed by John Doe and indorsed by 
 Kichard Roe and Peter Roe. When John 
 Doe received the cancelled check from his 
 bank, he discovered forgery of his signature 
 but did not notify the bank until eight 
 months thereafter. It also developed that 
 Richard Roe's indorsement was forged. The 
 bank seeks to escape liability to its depositor, 
 or if recovery is allowed to have recourse on 
 Peter Roe. Opinion: Where a bank pays a 
 forged check and returns same to its customer 
 as a voucher and the customer, after dis- 
 covering the forgery, fails for eight months 
 to notify the bank thereof, the bank can 
 hold the customer responsible for the amount, 
 if the unreasonable delay has worked to 
 its injury. Wheue a bank pays a check 
 upon which both drawer's signature and 
 payee's indorsement are forged, some courts 
 hold, and others deny, the bank can recover 
 the money as paid upon a forgery of the in- 
 dorsement, and in Nebraska the Supreme 
 Court has expressed the opinion that the rule 
 allowing recovery in such case is sound. In 
 this case the bank could probably prove injury 
 caused by delayed notification and hold the 
 customer responsible ; furthermore would have 
 right of recovery from Peter Roe. Vol. 11, 
 p. 274, Nov. 1918. 
 
 Check bearing forged and genuine 
 signatures 
 
 523. (Mo.) The treasurer of a corpora- 
 tion signed checks in blank and left them in 
 the drawer of the desk of his confidential 
 clerk for countersignature of the president 
 by rubber stamp. The desk drawer was ac- 
 cessible to a bookkeeper who wrongfully ap- 
 propriated the checks, affixed the rubber 
 stamp signature of the president thereto, 
 filled out and negotiated the checks to a bank, 
 which collected the same from the drawee. 
 Opinion: Under the law of Missouri the cor- 
 
 66
 
 FORGERY 
 
 531 
 
 poration is estopped by its negligence from 
 denying the genuineness of its signature, and 
 from asserting that such checks never had a 
 valid inception by delivery. It can hold 
 neither the purchasing bank nor the payor, 
 but is chargeable with the amount of such 
 checks. The facts here make out a case of 
 conduct on the part of the corporation so 
 grossly negligent as to estop it from denying 
 the delivery of the checks as completed in- 
 struments. Vol. 11, p. 486, INfarch, 1919. 
 
 524. (N. Y.) A corporation check re- 
 quiring the signature of the treasurer and the 
 countersignature of the manager was signed 
 in blank by the treasurer, carelessly exposed, 
 then stolen, the countersignature of the man- 
 ager forged and afterwards paid by the bank, 
 after it had been cashed by another bank upon 
 the forgery of the indorsement of a fictitious 
 payee. The corporation failed to notify its 
 bank of the theft. Opinion: While the mere 
 carelessly leaving exposed of a check book con- 
 taining blank checks has not Deen held re- 
 sponsible negligence on the part of the cus- 
 tomer, the leaving of such checks exposed con- 
 taining the genuine signature of oiLe of 
 two officials required to sign, coupled with the 
 fact that the customer did not notify the bank 
 and place it on its guard, might be held suffi- 
 cient to relieve the bank from the application 
 of the general rule that money paid on a 
 forged check is not chargeable and to make 
 the customer responsible. Vol. 1, p. 446, 
 June, 1909. 
 
 525. (Ohio.) A bank paid a check of a 
 corporation drawn payable to bearer, signed 
 by the treasurer, the countersignature of the 
 president being forged. The check was 
 stolen and cashed by an employee. The 
 understanding between bank and customer 
 was that all checks should have both signa- 
 tures. The bank questions as to its right to 
 charge the amount to the corporation's ac- 
 count. Opinion : A check signed by one only 
 and bearing a forgery of the other signature 
 is not an authority and direction to the bank 
 to pay, and is not chargeable in the absence 
 of negligence on the customer's part. Vol. 
 1, p. 448, June, 1909. 
 
 526. (Ohio.) Where an instrument con- 
 tains both forged and genuine signatures it 
 is valid in the hands of a bona fide holder 
 as to the makers whose signatures are gen- 
 uine, although they are ignorant of tlie for- 
 geries. Vol. 1, p. 448, June, 1909. 
 
 Drawer's duty of examination and 
 verification 
 
 527. (S. C.) A series of checks covering 
 a period of over a year, signed by a wife pay- 
 able to her husband, were caslied by a bank 
 for the husband and paid by the drawee. 
 During this time the pass-book was balanced 
 several times and no olijection to the vouchers 
 was made by the wife. Three years later she 
 claimed that all of the checks were forgeries. 
 Opinion: The drawee is not responsible to 
 the depositor who is estopped by the neglect 
 of duty to make examination and give notice 
 of the forgeries. The bank receiving pay- 
 ment is not liable because after the first 
 check was paid it was justified in cashing the 
 successive checks. Vol. 6, p. 206, Sept., 
 1913. 
 
 528. (S. Dak.) A statute in South Dakota 
 relieves a bank from liability to depositor for 
 payment of a forged check unless the deposi- 
 tor notifies the bank of the forgery within 
 three months after return to him of forged 
 check as voucher. Vol. 6, p. 437, Dec, 1913. 
 
 Forged order on savings deposit 
 
 529. (Kan.) A forged check and a pass- 
 book were presented at a bank by a man who 
 had been in the habit of making deposits for 
 the customer of the bank owning the savings 
 deposit. The signature of the forged check 
 seemed identical with the genuine signature. 
 Opinion: The bank is protected where the 
 person receiving payment presents the pass- 
 book and reasonable care is exercised by the 
 bank in making the pavment. Vol. 3, p. 521, 
 March, 1911. 
 
 530. (Kan.) Where payment is made by 
 a savings bank on a forged order to one pre- 
 senting the depositor's pass-book, and the rule 
 of the bank is that payment to one presenting 
 the pass-book is valid, the bank is protected 
 if reasonable care is used ; otherwise not. Vol. 
 2, p. 373, March, 1910. 
 
 531. (Ky.) A man not purporting to be 
 a depositor on presentment of a pass-book 
 and a forged order received payment from a 
 savings bank. One of the by-laws of the bank 
 sul)scribed to by the depositor road that "a 
 payment on presentment of a pass-book shall 
 1)0 a discharge to the bank for the amount so 
 paid." Opinion: The by-law protected the 
 i)ank where reasonable care was used. In the 
 absence of suspicious eircumst-ances. where the 
 bank compared the signatures and found 
 them similar, a court would likely hold that 
 
 67
 
 532 
 
 DIGEST OF LEGAL OriNIONS 
 
 it used reasonable care. Vol. 5, p. 305, Nov., 
 1912. 
 
 532. (Ohio.) The printed regulations 
 in a savings pass-book are binding upon the 
 depositor, but tlicy do not absolutely relieve 
 the bank from responsibility in ease of pay- 
 ment to a wrong person who presents the 
 book with a forged order, because the courts 
 add thereto the implied condition that the 
 bank in making such payment must have 
 exercised reasonable care. Vol. 6, p. 761, 
 May, 1914. 
 
 533. (Tex.) Where a bank exercises due 
 care, it is not responsible when it pays a 
 savings deposit to the wrong person on pre- 
 sentation of the pass-book with a forged 
 order. Vol. 5, p. 22, July, 1912. 
 
 Non-recovery of money paid on forged 
 check 
 
 534. (111.) D, who was employed by B, 
 made out a check to himself, forging B's 
 name. L, who received the check in pay- 
 ment for goods, deposited it two days later 
 at the drawee bank and received credit there- 
 for. Opinion: By the greater weight of au- 
 thority under the Negotiable Instruments 
 Law, there can be no recovery from L in 
 such a case where the drawee mistakes the 
 drawer's signature and pays a forged check 
 to a bona fide holder not guilty of negligence. 
 Vol. 5, p. 447, Jan., 1913. 
 
 535. (Kan.) A bank' paid a check 
 upon which the drawer's signature was forged 
 and which was presented by a merchant who 
 had taken the check from another persoQ. 
 Opinion: The bank can neither charge the 
 amount to the drawer nor recover from the 
 bona fide holder who received payment. Vol. 
 8, p. 911, April, 1916. 
 
 536. (Mo.) Under the law of Missouri 
 a bank cashing a check upon which the 
 drawer's signature is forged, is not liable to 
 refund the money to the drawee which has 
 paid the check. Vol. 3, p. 676, May, 1911. 
 
 537. (Mont.) Bank A paid its custom- 
 er's check after presentation by Bank B which 
 had cashed it for one of its customers. Later 
 the drawee discovering that it bore a forgery 
 of the drawer's signature, returned the clieck 
 to the first indorser, who was the customer 
 of Bank B, , and received cash for same, but 
 during tlie same day the customer presented 
 the same check to Bank A and received pay- 
 ment. Bank A then claimed the right to re- 
 turn the check to Bank B and recover the 
 
 money. Opinion: Bank A, mistaking the 
 signature of its customer and paying money 
 upon a forged check, eannot recover same 
 from Bank B, the innocent holder, who re- 
 ceived payment, and the fact that a prior 
 indorser, after discovery of the forgery, re- 
 turned the money to the drawee, but after- 
 wards demanded and received the same back 
 again, does not alter the case. Vol. 11, p. 
 480, March, 1919. 
 
 538. (Okla.) According to the law of 
 Oklahoma, the drawee paying a forged check 
 cannot in the absence of negligence or fraud 
 recover the amount from a bona fide holder 
 receiving payment. Vol. 5, p. 307, Nov., 
 1912. 
 
 539. (Ore.) Where the drawee pays a 
 check bearing the forged signature of the 
 drawer to a holder who has received the same 
 in due course, without fraud or negligence, it 
 cannot afterwards recover the monev paid. 
 Vol. 6, p. 437, Dec, 1913 . 
 
 540. (S. Dak.) It is the general rule 
 that the drawee is bound by the pa)Taent of 
 a forged check and cannot recover money paid 
 to a bona fide holder. There are exceptions 
 in some States. The question has not yet 
 been passed upon in South Dakota. Vol. 8, 
 p. 705, Feb., 1916. 
 
 541. (Tex.) A check drawn on a Texas 
 bank was deposited for collection. After it 
 was paid and the amount paid out by the 
 collecting bank, forgery of the drawer's sig- 
 nature was discovered. Which bank stands 
 the loss? Opinion: Drawee bank which pays 
 check upon which drawer's signature is 
 forged to a bank receiving same in good faith, 
 and paying out the money before notice of the 
 forger}'', cannot recover the money back. Vol. 
 11, p. 96, Aug., 1918. 
 
 542. (Tex.) A draft was forged by the 
 payee, indorsed by him and by his brother, 
 cashed by a bank on faith of the brother's 
 signature, and paid by the drawee. Opinion: 
 The drawee must stand the loss where it can 
 be shown that the bank was a bona fide holder 
 and that the forger's brother was not a guilty 
 participant. Vol. 1, p. 334, March, 1909. 
 
 543. (Wash.) A check upon which the 
 drawer's signature is forged is deposited in 
 bonk by a customer and paid by the drawee 
 through the Clearing House. Three days 
 later the forgery is discovered and re-pay- 
 ment demanded. Opinion: The Supreme 
 Court of Washington held in 1902 that a 
 drawee which paid a forged check to another 
 bank, which had negligently cashed the check 
 
 68
 
 FORGERY 
 
 550 
 
 upon the payee's indorsement, without in- 
 quiry or identification, could recover if it 
 acted within a reasonable time ; and also per- 
 mitted recovery where the recipient would 
 not be prejudiced by the repayment. Xo 
 reference in this case Avas made to the Ne- 
 gotiable Instruments Law M'hich had been in 
 force in 1899, but since that decision the 
 courts in New York, Missouri, Oregon and 
 Oklahoma have held the drawee is bound and 
 precluded from recovering money paid on a 
 forged check to a bona fide holder not guilty 
 of negligence. The right of recovery in the 
 present case would be denied if the Washing- 
 ton court should place a similar construction 
 upon the Negotiable Instruments Act. Vol. 
 5, p. 308, Nov., 1912. 
 
 544. (W. Va.) Drawee which pays a 
 check upon which the drawer^s signature has 
 been forged, to a bona fide holder free from 
 negligence, has no right of recovery from 
 such holder of the money paid. Vol. 10, p. 
 595, Feb., 1918. 
 
 545. (Iowa.) A bank paid three checks 
 aggregating $35, upon which the drawer's sig- 
 nature was forged. The checks were in- 
 dorsed by three different indorsers and came 
 to the drawee bank through the clearings. 
 The bank seeks to recover from the indorsers, 
 if possible. Opinion: The general rule sup- 
 ported by numerous authorities is tliat the 
 drawee, which pays a forged check to a bona 
 fide holder cannot recover the money back. 
 The indorsement does not warrant the gen- 
 uineness of the drawer's signature. But in 
 Iowa, if the first holder is negligent recovery 
 may be had of him, but such negligence can- 
 not be imputed to subsequent holder so as to 
 make him. liable. Vol. 10, p. C59, March, 
 1918. 
 
 546. (Neb.) On June 2nd, Ur. A. gave 
 his emplo3ee, R. W., a check for $11.25, and 
 the latter made a copy, forging the name of 
 Mr, A. on tlie copied check. The forged 
 check was cashed and later deposited at the 
 B bank, who in turn presented the check to 
 the drawee bank and received the money. 
 Several months later v/hen Mr. A. received 
 his checks, he discovered the forged check 
 and called upon the drawee bank for the 
 amount. Opinion: Under the law of Ne- 
 braska the drawee who pays a check upon 
 which the drawer's signature has been forged 
 cannot recover back the money imless he 
 pleads and proves that the lioldcr was negli- 
 gent in purcliasing or indorsing the instru- 
 ment, or guilty of bad faith. Vol. 9, p. 981, 
 June, 1917. 
 
 547. (Tenn.) A retailer accepted checks, 
 upon which drawer's signature was forged, in 
 payment of merchandise, indorsed and trans- 
 ferred them to a wholesaler and the latter 
 deposited them in a bank which collected 
 them from the drawee. The drawer's pass- 
 book was not balanced for eight or ten 
 months, at which time the forgery was dis- 
 covered and notice thereof given. The 
 drawee seeks to recover the amount paid. 
 Opinion: The drawee bank has no right of 
 recovery, under the decisions in Tennessee, 
 from the bank receiving payment and prob- 
 ably under such decisions would be denied 
 recovery from the retailer, even tliough the 
 latter was guilty of first negligence in accept- 
 ing the checks without proper identification. 
 Vol. 10, p. 717, April, 1918. 
 
 Recovery of money paid on forged check 
 
 548. (111.) It is the general rule that 
 the drawee bank having paid a check bearing 
 a forgery of the drawer's signature cannot re- 
 cover the money from a person wlio has re- 
 ceived payment of the same in good faith. 
 Whether the fact that the holder would not 
 be prejudiced if compelled to refund consti- 
 tutes an exception to the general rule is un- 
 certain in Illinois. It was held in an Illi- 
 nois case where tlie holder before receiving 
 payment on a forged check had knowledge of 
 suspicious fact^i, which was not imparted to 
 the drawee and would be in no worse posi- 
 tion if compelled to refund, that an exception 
 to the rule existed and the drawee could re- 
 cover, but in that case the holder was deprived 
 of a status of good faith holder. Most 
 courts hold that the single fact that the holder 
 would not be prejudiced if compelled to 
 refund, is not of itself suificient to create an 
 exception to the general rule denying the 
 drawee the right of recovery from a bona fide 
 holder. Further, a drawee cannot recover 
 from a bona fide holder who has received 
 jiayment of check drawn by a person having 
 no account in the bank. Vol. 10, p. 852, 
 June, 1918. 
 
 549. (Miss.) The drawee of a check 
 on which the drawer's signature is forged 
 can recover from jiayoc the money i)aid there- 
 on. The payee should know with whom he 
 is dealing, and if the check is a forgery he is 
 liable to the drawee. Vol. 5, j). 7. "jo. May, 
 1913. 
 
 550. (Iowa.) A customer deposited for 
 collection a check drawn on a local bank 
 which was duly paid through the clearings. 
 Thirty days later the drawee bank discovered 
 
 69
 
 551 
 
 DIGEST OF LEGAL OPINIONS 
 
 that the drawer's signature liad been forged 
 and seeks to hold the collecting bank liable as 
 indorser. Opinion: In Iowa a drawee which 
 pays to a bona fide holder a check upon which 
 the drawer's signature is forged cannot re- 
 cover the money, but if the holder has been 
 negligent in acquiring the check without due 
 inquiry, recovery is allowed. Where payment 
 is made to a bona fide indorsee of a negligent 
 holder, the latter is not liable but the drawee 
 has recourse upon the prior indorser who is 
 guilty of negligence. Vol. 10, p. 464, Dec, 
 1917. 
 
 551. (Term.) A customer cashed a 
 forged check at his bank, which in turn re- 
 ceived payment from the drawee bank. A 
 month later the drawee discovered the forgery 
 of its depositor's signature. Opmion: Re- 
 covery of payment by the drawee, under the 
 law of Tennessee, depends on whether or not 
 the customer was negligent in taking the 
 check from the forger. Vol. 2, p. 303, Jan., 
 1910. 
 
 552. (Pa.) On August 19th a check 
 bearing the forged signature of the drawer 
 was deposited by a merchant, a bona fiHe 
 holder, and was paid by the drawee. On Oc- 
 tober 11th the forgery was discovered and the 
 drawee notified. Opinion: In Pennsylvania 
 the drawee can recover from the holder re- 
 ceiving payment under the Act of 1849, pro- 
 vided prompt notice of the forgery is given. 
 The question of what is prompt notice is 
 somewhat uncertain under the Pennsylvania 
 decisions. Delay in giving notice will relieve 
 the person receiving payment from liability 
 unless he is not prejudiced by such delay. 
 Vol. 8, p. 417, Nov., 1915. 
 
 553. (Neb.) Where the drawee paid a 
 forged check, it can under the law of Ne- 
 braska recover the money paid from the party 
 who cashed the same, but who failed to re- 
 quire proof of the identity of the person pre- 
 senting the check. Vol. 1, p. 168. Nov., 
 1908. 
 
 554. (Pa.) A cheek bearing the ficti- 
 tious name of a payee was cashed by a bank 
 for the payee and paid by the drawee. One 
 mouth later the drawee discovered the forgery 
 of the drawer's signature. Upon whom 
 should the loss fall? Opinion: In Pennsyl- 
 vania, under the Act of 1849, a bank which 
 pays money upon a forged check, purporting 
 to be drawn upon it, is not precluded from 
 recovering the money paid, provided it gives 
 notice with reasonable diligence. WHiat is 
 reasonable diligence and whether a delay of 
 
 thirty days between payment and notification, 
 notice being given immediately upon dis- 
 covery would be unreasonable, is not clearly 
 defined by Pennsylvania decisions. Vol. 11, 
 p. 556, April, 1919. 
 
 555. (Pa.) A bank paid a forged check 
 upon which the signatures of the drawer and 
 payee were the same. Two months later the 
 forgery was discovered. The bank receiving 
 payment guaranteed prior indorsements. 
 Opinion: The drawee bank would have a fair 
 chance of recovery from the bank receiving 
 payment. The Act of 1849, still in force in 
 Pennsylvania, favors the drawee's recovery. 
 Furthermore, the courts may hold that the 
 bank receiving payment has by its indorse- 
 ment specially guaranteed the genuineness of 
 the drawer's signature, he being also indors- 
 ing payee. Vol. 5, p. 242, Oct., 1912. 
 
 556. (S. Dak.) A bank in South Dakota 
 paid a check drawn on it for $8.50, bearing 
 a forgery of the drawer's signature, said 
 check having been indorsed and presented 
 by another bank to whom the amount was 
 paid. A month later, when the depositor 
 had his bank book balanced, the forgery was 
 discovered, and the presenting bank imme- 
 diately notified. The holder of the check dis- 
 claims responsibility. Opinion: The general 
 rule is that drawee cannot recover money 
 paid on forged check to bona fide holder who 
 is free from negligence. In South Dakota 
 exceptional rule exists that money is recover- 
 able on theory that drawee has right to rely 
 on' holder's indorsement as vouching for gen- 
 uineness of signature. Vol. 10, p. 203, Sept., 
 1917. 
 
 Checks cashed for strangers 
 
 See 355 
 
 557. (111.) A drawee bank paid six 
 forged checks to banks which cashed them for 
 strangers without identification. Opinion: 
 The drawee cannot charge them to drawer's 
 account, but would probably have a right of 
 recovery against the banks under the Illinois 
 decisions, unless the Negotiable Instruments 
 Law is construed as precluding recovery. Vol. 
 6, p. 271, Oct., 1913. 
 
 558. (Okla.) In Oklahoma, drawe who 
 pays forged check to a bona fide holder free 
 from negligence cannot recover money paid. 
 Since the passage of the Negotiable Instru- 
 ments Act in 1912 the question is an open 
 one in the state, whether holder taking check 
 from stranger without inquiry as to identity
 
 FORGERY 
 
 564 
 
 is negligent and responsible to the drawee. 
 Vol. 9, p. 654, Feb., 1917. 
 
 559. (Okla.) A check upon which the 
 drawer's signature was forged was cashed by 
 a bank in Oklahoma, which took it from a 
 stranger without identification. Relying 
 upon the express guarantee of the bank that 
 the payee's indorsement was genuine, the 
 drawee paid the check. Opinion : The drawee 
 can recover the money. Vol. 3, p. 589, April, 
 1911. 
 
 560. (Minn.) A drawee bank paid two 
 checks upon which the drawer's signature was 
 forged. The checks had been cashed at sa- 
 loons in the town and the saloonkeepers were 
 unable to identify the indorsements. The 
 bank admits its liability to the drawer but 
 seeks to hold the indorsers responsible for 
 cashing the checks for strangers. Opinion: 
 Drawee cannot recover money paid upon 
 check bearing forgery of drawer's signature 
 from bona fide holder, but may recover when 
 payment is made to one not a bona fide holder. 
 If the holder takes the check under circum- 
 stances which would put an ordinarily pru- 
 dent man upon inquiry and makes no attempt 
 to ascertain the truth, he is not a bona fide 
 holder, but in Minnesota the one circumstance 
 that holder takes check from an entire stran- 
 ger without inquiry is not sufficient to 
 deprive him of status of bona fide holder. 
 If payee's indorsement is also forged, the 
 drawee, under Minnesota rule, may recover 
 from subsequent indorser as warrantor of 
 genuineness, notwithstanding forgery of 
 drawer's signature. Vol. 10, p. 202, Sept., 
 1917. 
 
 Forgery of signature by mark 
 
 561. (Cal.) A customer left his written 
 signature at a bank and two years later his 
 check was presented signed by a mark with 
 two witnesses unknown to the bank. The 
 check had been cashed by another bank which 
 refused to guarantee the signature. Opin- 
 ion: The drawee before paying the check is 
 entitled to require a guaranty or satisfactory 
 evidence of the genuineness of the signature. 
 In the event the drawee should pay the check 
 and it should prove to be a forgery, the rule 
 that a bank is bound to know its customer's 
 signature and cannot recover money paid a 
 bona fide holder on a forgery thereof, has 
 never been applied where the check was 
 signed by mark with witnesses, and in such 
 case the bank receiving payment is equally 
 bounil with the drawee to know the genuine- 
 
 ness of the signature and the credibility of 
 the witnesses. Vol. 5, p. 833, June, 1913. 
 
 562. (Ga.) Sam Smith has an account 
 with a bank, and being unable to write, signs 
 checks with a mark, having someone to wit- 
 ness the same. Henry Jones, representing 
 himself to a merchant as Sam Smith, fills out 
 a check on the bank to his own order, which 
 bears the forged signature 
 
 his 
 "Sam X Smith" 
 mark 
 and the signature of the merchant as a wit- 
 ness. The bank paid Henry Jones the cash 
 on tliis check, and seeks to hold the merchant 
 liable. Opinion: When a person signs his 
 name as witness to a signature Viy mark upon 
 a check, which signature is a forgery, the wit- 
 ness is liable to the drawee bank which pays 
 the check in reliance upon such signature as 
 witness. Vol. 10, p. 780, May, 1918. 
 
 563. (Wis.) Bank A issued a time cer- 
 tificate of deposit to Mr. and Mrs. John Doe, 
 who are illiterate and give their signature by 
 mark. Dick Smith having forged the sig- 
 natures of the payees by mark deposited the 
 certificate in Bank C, which in turn for- 
 warded it to Bank B and received a ri'init- 
 tance, although before maturity. Bank B 
 held the instrument for three months until 
 the date of maturity and upon presentment 
 the amount was paid by Bank A. The payees 
 claimed that their purported indorsement was 
 forged and sue Bank A for payment. Ojnn- 
 ion: A bank wliich pays a certificate of de- 
 posit upon forgery of the payee's signature, 
 made by mark and witness, remains liable to 
 the payee for the money but has right of re- 
 covery from the bank which collected tlio cer- 
 tificate upon forged indorsement. Bank C, 
 therefore, must bear the loss. The rule 
 v.'hich has been held in one or two cases that 
 a bank is bound to know the payee's indor.<e- 
 ment upon its certificate of deposit has no ap- 
 plication where the indorsement is bv mark 
 and witness. The fact tliat Bank B remitted 
 to Bank C before maturity of the certificate 
 and held the same until maturity before col- 
 lecting from Bank A would have no bearing 
 on the question of liabilitv. Vol. 11, p. 40, 
 July, 1918. See 280, 512, 515. 
 
 Forged telegraph order to pay money 
 
 564. (Ark.) A bank received a tele- 
 grapli message purporting to be signed by an- 
 other bank. "Pay John Jones $75, waive iden- 
 tification, we remit." The message was not 
 
 71
 
 565 
 
 DIGEST OF LEGAL OPINIONS 
 
 sent by any bank but by a person unknown to 
 the telcf^jruph company, Avhicli cannot find out 
 the identity of the sender. Tlic bank })aid 
 the money on failh of the tele<^frani. Opin- 
 ion: Where a telc^ra])h company receives and 
 transmits a forged telegram purporting to be 
 sent by one bank to anotlier, ordering the 
 payment of money, the company is not liable 
 as an insurer of the genuineness of the mes- 
 sage, but is bound to exercise reasonable care 
 to receive and transmit only genuine mes- 
 sages and is responsible for negligence in that 
 regard. Where a telegraph company re- 
 ceives from a person a message signed in the 
 name of a bank, without making inquiry of 
 the bank or ascertaining the authority of the 
 sender to sign the bank's name, it does not 
 use due care and is responsible. Vol. 4, p. 
 686, May, 1912. 
 
 565. (Cal.) A telegraph company wir- 
 ing a forged message purporting to be from 
 one bank to another, requesting the payment 
 of money to a person named, without identi- 
 fication, is not an insurer of the genuineness 
 of the message, but is bound to exercise rea- 
 sonable care and is responsible for negligence. 
 The use of the American Bankers Associa- 
 tion cipher code affords increased protection. 
 Vol. 7, p. 163, Sept., 1914. 
 
 566. (N. M.) A bank received from the 
 delivery boy of a telegraph company a mes- 
 sage purporting to be signed by another bank 
 requesting it to pay L. $600. The money was 
 paid L., who disappeared. Later in the day 
 the telegraph company informed the bank 
 that the message was forged. Opinion: The 
 telegraph company is liable to the bank. 
 While the telegraph company is not a war- 
 rantor of the truth of messages, it is bound 
 to exercise due care in ascertaining the au- 
 thenticity of a received message, and its act 
 of delivery is a representation that the mes- 
 sage was received from the bank whose sig- 
 nature is affixed. Vol. 3, p. 735, June, 1911. 
 
 Recovery of money paid on forged 
 indorsement 
 
 567. (Okla.) Where a check on which 
 the payee's indorsement is forged is cashed 
 by a merchant, is deposited in a bank and col- 
 lected of the drawee, the latter cannot charge 
 payment to the drawer, but has the right of 
 recovery from the bank receiving payment 
 which in turn has recourse upon the mer- 
 chant. The elapsing of several days before 
 discoverv of the forgerv would not affect the 
 
 was 
 
 right of recovery where prompt notice 
 given. Vol. 6, p. 271, Oct., 1913. 
 
 568. (Pa.) A check payable to a, firm 
 whose indorsement was forged was paid to an 
 express company by a bank after it had tele- 
 phoned the maker. Opinion: The bank can- 
 not cliarge the amount to the drawer's account 
 unless tlie latter was negligent in giving no- 
 tice after the discovery of the forgery. The 
 bank has a right of recovery against the ex- 
 press compaTiy, provided the indorsement to 
 the latter was in unrestricted form. Vol. 9, 
 p. 414, Nov., 1916. 
 
 569. (Pa.) A bank which cashes for 
 the second indorser, who is its customer, a 
 check upon which the payee's indorsement is 
 forged, has the right to charge the amount to 
 the customer's account. Vol. 2, p. 155, Oct., 
 1909. 
 
 570. (Idaho.) Bank A, in excliange for 
 $150 currency and a forged check for $75.50, 
 issued to a forger its cashier's check payable 
 to a different person for $225.50. The 
 forger indorsed the payee's name and forged 
 the indorsement of another person as identi- 
 fier and succeeded in cashing the check at 
 Bank B in a neighboring town, to which 
 Bank A paid the full amount. Bank A de- 
 manded that Bank B refund the amount. 
 Opinion: Bank A cannot recover the $150 
 for which it received full value. As to the 
 $75.50, it can recover the amount on the 
 ground that Bank B took the check under a 
 forged indorsement and acquired no title. 
 Although the check was payable to a name 
 supplied by the forger, it cannot be regarded 
 as payable to bearer under the Negotiable In- 
 struments Act, as the drawer was without 
 knowledge that the payee was fictitious. Nor 
 can the indorsement be regarded as made by 
 the precise person intended to receive the 
 money and therefore not a forgery, because 
 the bank did not intend to make it payable 
 to the person who received the check but to 
 a different person whose name was supplied 
 by the forger. Vol. 9, p. 579, Jan., 1917. 
 
 571. (Kan.) A bank paid its own 
 cashier's check, upon which the payee's in- 
 dorsement was forged. The check was pre- 
 sented bearing the previous indorser's stamp 
 guaranteeing prior indorsements. Opijiion: 
 The bank may recover the money paid. It 
 is not bound to know the signature of the 
 payee which is not kept on file. Vol. 8, p. 
 1015, May, 1916. 
 
 572. (Tenn.) A bank which cashes a 
 check bearing the forgery of the payee's in- 
 
 72
 
 FORGERY 
 
 578 
 
 dorsement acquires no title, aud where it re- 
 ceives payment from the drawee must refund. 
 Vol. 6, p. 33, July, 1913. 
 
 573. (Wyo.) A forger impersonating 
 A deposited for collection a draft payable to 
 A. To make sure that the payee's indorse- 
 ment was genuine, the bank holding the draft 
 sent a sample of the supposed A's signature 
 to the drawer (with whom A formerly had 
 an account) for verification. The drawer 
 having compared the genuine and the forged 
 signatures of A, returned the signature sent 
 on for verification, also a sample signature of 
 their customer, to the bank, with the state- 
 ment that in its judgment the two signatures 
 agreed. Opinion: The bank cashing the 
 draft on the forgery and collecting from the 
 drawee is obliged to refund. The drawer by 
 its statement is not estopped from denying 
 the genuineness of the payee' signature. Vol. 
 4, p. 94, Aug., 1911. 
 
 574. (Wash.) John Doe gives his check 
 to Richard Roc. It was indorsed as follows : 
 "Richard Roe, by S. E. T.", "Pay to the order 
 of any bank, banker or trust company 
 Bank of Smallville, Washington," "Pay to 
 any bank, banker or trust company. Bank 
 of Oregon, Portland, Oregon," and mailed 
 by the latter to the drawee for col- 
 lection and credit. It developed later that 
 "S. E. T." had no authority to indorse. On 
 whom does the loss fall? Opinion: The 
 drawee paying the check upon which the 
 payee's indorsement was unauthorized may 
 recover the money from the party receiving 
 payment, unless there was unreasonable delay 
 in giving notice after discovery of the forged 
 or unauthorized indorsement. There is con- 
 flict of authority whether indorsement "pay 
 any bank or banker" is general or restrictive. 
 There is a line of cases to the effect that said 
 form of indorsement is not title-conveying 
 but restrictive and agent-creating, and does 
 not of itself guaranty prior indorsements. 
 The courts in Massachusetts, Georgia and 
 l^Iissouri hold this view. A Nebraska case 
 held such form of indorsement not a restric- 
 tive but a general indorsement, or title-con- 
 veying form, and this rule is supported by the 
 better reason. Under either rule, the IBank 
 of Smallville is the ultimate loser, provided it 
 received prompt notice of the error. Vol. 10, 
 p. 121, Aug., 1917. See 521, 522, 552, 581, 
 583, 584. 
 
 Effect of delay in giving notice of forgery 
 
 575. (Mass.) A bank received for col- 
 lection several checks from C, its depositor, 
 
 who was acting as collector of B, a French 
 Fund for Orphans, which was named as payee 
 and to whom the checks were donated. The 
 checks bore the indorsements of the payee 
 and of C, and were paid by the drawee bank. 
 After two years liad elapsed, B claims that his 
 indorsement was a forgery and demands res- 
 titution. Opinion: Where tiie payee's in- 
 dorsement on certain checks is forged and the 
 forger deposits the checks in a bank which 
 collects them from the drawee, the payee has 
 a right of action against the indorsee bank for 
 the proceeds of such checks and a delay of two 
 years before giving notice will not affect iiis 
 right of recovery unless the indorsee bank 
 has been prejudiced by such delay or suffered 
 a loss, which an earlier notice might have pre- 
 vented. Vol. 11, p. 488, March, 1919. 
 
 576. (Miss.) A drawee bank paid a 
 draft, upon which the payee's indorsement 
 was forged, and eiglit months later discovered 
 the forgery. Three and one-half mouths 
 after said discovery- the drawee notified the 
 bank which cashed the draft and demanded 
 a return of the money. Opinion: According 
 to the rule adopted in a number of States, the 
 drawee's delay in giving notice after discov- 
 ery bars its recovery, provided the bank re- 
 ceiving payment was damaged by such delay ; 
 but under the theory of the United States 
 Supreme Court, the drawee can recover upon 
 breach of warranty, irrespective of the un- 
 reasonable delay in giving notice. The right 
 of recovery would, therefore, seem to depend 
 upon the jurisdiction in which the action i.s 
 brought. Vol. 6, p. 512, Jan., 1914. 
 
 Recovery where indorsement guaranteed 
 
 577. (Fla.) A check on A bank, payable 
 to and indorsed in blank by D, followed by 
 indorsement of R, to order of Bank of B, and 
 indorsed by latter "previous iiulorsements 
 guaranteed," was ])aid to li bank. Drawer 
 pronounces check a forgery. Opinion: The 
 drawee cannot hold B bank. Money paid 
 upon forged cliock cannot be recovered frora 
 a bona fide holder who received payment. 
 The guaranty of prior indorsements does not 
 warrant genuineness of drawer's signature. 
 Vol. 3, p. 734, June, 1911. 
 
 578. (Ky.) Whore C bank draws its 
 draft on G bank in favor of D. F. Co., and 
 the indorsement of the payee is forged and 
 the draft deposited in II bank, which guaran- 
 tees the indorsement and collects Troni the 
 drawee through I bank, C bank on learning 
 of the forgery six months later has the right 
 of recover}' against drawee G, which in turn 
 
 73
 
 579 
 
 DIGEST OF LEGAL OPINIONS 
 
 has a remedy against I and H banks, the 
 latter being the ultimate loser. Vol. 1, p. 94, 
 Sept., 1908. 
 
 579. (Okla.) A bank as drawee received 
 a check of $15,000, payable to James Smith. 
 It was indorsed "James Smith, by Florence 
 Smith" and had the regular stamp indorse- 
 ments of several banks, reciting "all previous 
 indorsements goiarajnteed." Would draWee 
 be protected in paying check in event James 
 Smith claimed he never received the money? 
 Opinion: Where the payee's indorsement is 
 forged and such indorsement is followed by 
 the indorsement of a bank guaranteeing prior 
 indorsements, the drawee bank is protected 
 in making payment for, while liable for the 
 amount to the drawer or to the payee, the 
 drawee has full recourse upon the guaran- 
 teeing bank. Vol. 11, p. 329, Dec, 1918. 
 
 580. (Pa.) A drawee bank paid a check 
 upon the forged indorsement of the payee in 
 violation of the maker's stop payment order. 
 The indorsement was expressly guaranteed. 
 Opinion: In this particular case the drawee 
 could recover upon the special guaranty. In 
 a given case where there is no such guaranty 
 there might be ground for a contention that 
 a stop payment notice puts the drawee on in- 
 quiry as to equities which would estop it from 
 recovering from a bona fide holder. Vol. 6, 
 p. 514, Jan., 1914. 
 
 581. (Ark.) A drawee bank paid a 
 check bearing forgery of the payee's signature 
 to the collecting bank, which had guaranteed 
 all prior indorsements. Thirty days elapsed 
 before the drawer notified the drawee of the 
 forgery and the drawee in turn promptly 
 notified the bank receiving payment, which 
 bank refused to refund. Opinion: The 
 drawee bank has a right of recovery from 
 the collecting bank and the fact that 30 days 
 elapsed before notice of the forgery was given 
 to the collecting bank, such bank having been 
 notified as soon as the forgery was discovered, 
 does not bar the right of recovery. The rule 
 is that notice should be given within a reason- 
 able time after the forgery has been dis- 
 covered. Vol. 10, p. 718, April, 1918. 
 
 Non-recovery of money paid on forged 
 indorsement 
 
 582. (Ohio.) An Ohio bank drew its 
 draft upon a German bank, payable to A. 
 The draft was paid by the drawee upon a 
 forged indorsement. A claims that neither 
 the draft nor its proceeds were ever received 
 by her, and demands refund of the purchase 
 
 money from the Ohio bank. Opinion : Under 
 the German law the paying drawee is not re- 
 sponsible for the genuineness df indorse- 
 ments. IIa<l the payee received this draft 
 over the counter of the Ohio bank, she would 
 be the loser. Assuming the draft was for- 
 warded by mail to and never received by the 
 payee, the question of responsibility would 
 depend upon whether the method of forward- 
 ing was by her authority. If authorized, the 
 risk of miscarriage would rest with the pur- 
 chaser; but if forwarded at the risk of the 
 bank, it would remain liable for a considera- 
 tion never delivered. Vol. 5, p. 517, Feb., 
 1913. 
 
 583. (S. Dak.) Where the drawee bank de- 
 layed the giving of notice for more than two 
 months after the discovery of the forgery of 
 the payee's indorsement, it cannot recover 
 under the rule adopted in a number of States, 
 provided the bank receiving payment can 
 show that the delay caused it a loss. Under 
 the rule laid down by the United States Su- 
 preme Court, the drawee can recover, regard- 
 less of the unreasonable delay in giving notice 
 of the forgery. Vol. 6, p. 512, Jan., 1914. 
 
 584. (Utah.) On February 6th a bank 
 cashed a check upon which the payee's in- 
 dorsement was forged, the forger having been 
 introduced to the bank as the payee by one of 
 its depositors who left the city in April and 
 cannot be located. On June 27th the bank 
 was notified of the forgery by the payor of 
 the check. Opinion: If there was unreason- 
 able delay after discovery of the forgery in 
 giving notice thereof, accompanied by loss 
 sustained by the bank, the drawee of the 
 check could not recover. Mere delay, how- 
 ever, in discovering the forgery is no defense. 
 If the forgery was discovered soon after the 
 check was paid, the delay in giving notice to 
 the bank might be a good defense, assuming 
 there was recourse, which was lost, upon the 
 depositor who misrepresented the forger as 
 the payee. Vol. 5, p. 109, Aug., 1912. 
 
 Indorsement by person of same name 
 
 See 743, 744 
 
 585. (Fla.) An indorsement of a draft 
 by a person of the same name but not the 
 payee intended is a forgery, and the bank 
 cashing the draft is responsible for the loss, 
 in the absence of any negligence on the part 
 of the drawer. Vol. 4, p. 157, Sept., 1911. 
 
 586. (Ind.) The purchaser of a draft 
 mailed it to himself at his home city with no 
 particular street address, and draft was de- 
 
 74
 
 FORGERY 
 
 5d4 
 
 livered to a person of the same name, who 
 cashed it at the bank upon his forged indorse- 
 ment. The bank collected the draft. Opin- 
 ion: The indorsement was a forgery and the 
 purchasing bank derived no title and is liable 
 to the drawee. It is doubtful if a defense of 
 negligence can be successfully maintained. 
 Vol. 2, p. 301, Jan., 1910. 
 
 587. (La.) A bank purchased a draft 
 payable to "G. Smith." The draft was in- 
 dorsed by a person of the same name, not the 
 real payee. Opinion: The indorsement is a 
 forgery and purchaser derived no title. Vol. 
 5, p. 596, March, 1913. 
 
 588. (Okla.) A check payable to John 
 Smith was mailed by the drawer to the payee, 
 but was delivered to another person of the 
 same name, who was personally known to the 
 drawee, and who received payment on his in- 
 dorsement. Opinion: The indorsement is a 
 forgery and the drawee cannot charge the 
 amount to the drawer, in the absence of draw- 
 er's negligence in mailing the check, but can 
 recover from the person receiving payment. 
 Vol. 8, p. 1101, June, 1916. 
 
 589. (W. Va.) The drawer of a check 
 mailed it to one J. Smith, to whom payable, 
 at No. 2701 A Street instead of No. 2701 B 
 Street. Another J. Smith, who happened to 
 live at the former address, received the check 
 and cashed it at a bank, whicTi was an in- 
 nocent purchaser for value. Opinion: The 
 indorsement was a forgery and the purchaser 
 took no title nor right to enforce against the 
 maker. Where the drawer negligentlv mails 
 a check to the wrong address, and it gets into 
 the hands of a person of the same name, who 
 forges the indorsement, an Ohio case holds 
 that the drawer is liable to the drawee which 
 pays the check; but it is doubtful that such 
 liability wouid extend to the purchaser of the 
 check from the forger. Vol. 7, p. 223. Oct., 
 1914. 
 
 590. (W. Va.) A check was mailed to 
 the payee and delivered to the wrong person 
 of the same name who indorsed and nego- 
 tiated it to a purchaser for value. Opinion: 
 The indorsement was a forgery and the pur- 
 chaser took no rights, unless the maker of the 
 check was guilty of negligence in letting the 
 check get into the hands of the wrong person. 
 Vol. 2, p. 538, June, 1910. 
 
 Indorsement by precise person intended 
 
 See 711, 712 
 
 591. (Idaho.) A railroad pay-check 
 payable to R. E. Jones was through a mistake 
 
 delivered by an agent of the railroad to the 
 wrong person, who impersonated Jones. The 
 impersonator indorsed the check R. E. Jones 
 and cashed it at a bank. The real pavee 
 seeks to hold the bank liable. Opinion:' It 
 might be held that under the circumstances 
 the indorsement was not a forgery but by tlie 
 precise person intended by the drawer to 
 receive the money, in which case the railroad 
 company would be liable. Vol. 4, p. 3ii3 
 Nov., 1911. 
 
 592. (Minn.) A chock is drawn and de- 
 livered to an impostor, the drawer believing 
 him to be the person named therein. The 
 impostor indorsed in the name he had as- 
 sumed, and upon being properly identified 
 cashed the same for value at a bank. Opin- 
 ion: The bank cashing the check is protected, 
 as the indorsement is not a forgery, but by 
 the precise person intended to receive the 
 money. The majority rule is as above, but 
 there are a few cases contra. Vol. 4, p. 157, 
 Sept., 1911. 
 
 593. (Mo.) A stranger representing 
 himself as B presented to the drawee bank a 
 check payable to the order of B, and the bank 
 delivered to the stranger its cashier's clieck 
 payable to the order of B.. The stranger in- 
 dorsed the cashier's check in the name of B 
 to another bank and that bank received pay- 
 ment. Opinion: As between the bank de- 
 livering the cashier's check and the bank re- 
 ceiving payment, the former would be the 
 loser in the event the indorsement is not tliat 
 of B. Vol. 3, p. 733, June, 1911. 
 
 594. (Ohio.) A savings bank received 
 by mail from an impostor, who imj)ersonated 
 a depositor, tlie depositor's pass-book and a 
 forged order with a letter rorjuesting payment 
 of the full amount due. .\ few days previous 
 the pass-book had been presented with an 
 order for part of the funds, but payment was 
 refused because the signatures did not corres- 
 pond. The savings bank dealt with the im- 
 postor, believing him to be its depositor, and 
 mailed to the impostor in another city its 
 check payable to tlie depositor. The impos- 
 tor indorsed the check in the name of the de- 
 positor to a bank, which collected it and then 
 jiaid the proceeds of the ciieck to the impostor. 
 Opinion: The I)ank would have a fair ground 
 of defending against liability to the savings 
 bank (1) because the check was indorsed by 
 the precise person intended by the drawer to 
 receive payment, and (2) because the savings 
 bank would probably be estopped in setting 
 up forgery l)y reason of negligence in mailing 
 the check under such suspicious circum- 
 
 76
 
 595 
 
 DIGEST OF LEGAL OPINIONS 
 
 stances. As a furtlicr fi^rouiul, if llie bank 
 could show that it appeared on the check as 
 collecting agent, it could escape liability, after 
 payment of the proceeds to the impostor. 
 Vol. (), p. 823, June, 1914. 
 
 Effect of waiver of identification 
 
 595. (Mich.) A customer cashed a 
 stolen railway pay-check upon a forged in- 
 dorsement. The check was drawn on the 
 same bank in which the customer kept his 
 account and upon deposit the customer's ac- 
 count was credited. Two weeks later the 
 payee who lost the check notified the bank. 
 The makers of the check had sent the 
 drawee a letter in which they stated : "We 
 will waive identification of the person pre- 
 senting check for payment." Opinion: The 
 customer must refund to the bank. The two 
 weeks delay will not affect the drawer's right 
 of recovery nor the payee's claim against the 
 company. The waiver is available as a pro- 
 tection only to the bank and not to the 
 merchant cashing the check upon a forged in- 
 dorsement. Vol. 7, p. 579, Feb., 1915. 
 
 Recovery of money paid on forged bearer 
 check 
 
 596. (Miss.) The Y Trust Company 
 cashed and received pa3'ment of a forged 
 check drawn on the X Bank, made payable 
 to cash or bearer. The check bore the sig- 
 nature and indorsement of E. G. W., both of 
 which were forgeries. It developed that the 
 handwriting of E. G. W. as drawer and on 
 the back of the check was that of a former 
 customer of the Y Trust Company, whose 
 signature they had on file, and that this 
 person had disappeared immediately after 
 the check was cashed. Opinion: The general 
 rule is that money paid upon a forged check 
 to a bona fide holder is not recoverable, but 
 the special circumstances in this case that 
 the loss was incurred before payment was 
 received from the drawee, and that the signa- 
 ture and indorsement were made by a former 
 customer of the Trust Company, which 
 should have kno^\^l the identity of the person 
 receiving the cash, and that he was not 
 R. G. W., would probably be held to modify 
 the general rule and permit recovery. Vol. 
 4, p. 428, Jan., 1912. 
 
 597. (N. Y.) A customer presents a 
 forged bearer check to the drawee, indorses 
 it, and receives the money. The forgery is 
 discovered the same day. The question arises 
 as to the drawee's right of recovery. Opin- 
 
 ion: Under the general rule money paid upon 
 a forged check is not recoverable. A lower 
 New York court has held that where a forged 
 bearer check is indorsed by tlie person re- 
 ceiving papnent, this constitutes an excep- 
 tion to the rule, as the indorsement is un- 
 necessary and tends to divert the drawee from 
 scrutiny of the drawer's signature; but this 
 decision has not been taken to the highest 
 court and has been criticized. Vol. 4, p. 
 156, Sept., 1911. 
 
 Signature and indorsement both forged 
 
 598. (Cal.) A bank paid a check upon 
 which the signatures of both drawer and 
 payee were forged, and payment was made to 
 the supposed payee upon the indorsement of 
 one T, a customer of the bank, below the 
 forged indorsement of the payee. Opinion: 
 The bank could recover from T on his breach 
 of warranty of the genuineness of the forged 
 indorsement. Vol. 2, p. 188, Nov., 1909. 
 
 599. (Conn.) A bank paid several 
 forged checks, upon which the indorsement of 
 the payee, a fictitious person, was also 
 forged. Opinion: The decisions are in con- 
 flict upon the drawee's right of recovery from 
 the bank to which the checks were paid. In 
 Connecticut the question has not been passed 
 upon. Vol. 8, p. 1014, May, 1916. 
 
 600. (La.) A presented a check signed 
 by B and indorsed in blank by the payee. 
 The check was paid by the drawee, and upon 
 faith of such payment A paid over the pro- 
 ceeds. Later it was discovered that B's sig- 
 nature was forged. Opinion: The drawee 
 cannot recover from the bona fide holder. If 
 payee's indorsement was also forged, author- 
 ities conflict as to drawee's right of recovery. 
 The decisions in Illinois and Nebraska allow 
 recovery, while a decision in Iowa denies 
 right of recovery. Vol. 4, p. 25, July, 1911. 
 
 601. (Neb.) Two checks were drawn on 
 a Nebraska bank on which the signatures of 
 both the drawer and of the payee were forged. 
 These checks were cashed for the forger by 
 two banks in Nebraska and indorsed over to 
 two banks in Iowa, which banks received 
 payment from the drawee bank. Opinion: 
 Under the law of Nebraska the drawee can 
 recover from the last endorser as warrantor 
 of a prior forged indorsement. Under the 
 law of Iowa the drawee could not recover. 
 Vol. 3, p. 588, April, 1911. 
 
 602. (N. Y.) A bank in New York, a 
 bona fide holder, cashed a check iipon which 
 the drawer's signature and the payee's in- 
 
 76
 
 FORGERY 
 
 608 
 
 dorsement were forged. Opinion: Under the 
 New York law the drawee bank which paid 
 the check is the loser, and cannot recover from 
 the New York bank. Vol. 5, p. 448, Jan., 
 1913. 
 
 603. (Okla.) A drawee bank paid a 
 check upon which the drawer's signature and 
 the payee's indorsement were forged. The 
 bank receiving payment stamped the check 
 "prior indorsements guaranteed." Opinion: 
 The question of drawee's right of recovery 
 has never been passed upon in Oklahoma. The 
 decisions of other states on this proposition 
 are conflicting. Vol. 8, p. 35, July, 1915. 
 
 604. (Wash.) A forged check bearing 
 a forged indorsement was deposited in a 
 bank by its customer and paid through the 
 clearing house by the drawee. The drawee 
 returned the check to the collecting bank with 
 notation "forged indorsement." Before 
 charging the customer with the amount, it 
 was discovered that the drawer's signature 
 was also forged, and the collecting bank 
 seeks to hold the drawee liable. Opinion: 
 Where the drawer's signature and payee's in- 
 dorsement are both forged, the decisions con- 
 flict as to the drawee's right to recover money 
 paid on check to a bona fide holder. In 
 Washington, the drawee paying the forged 
 check is held entitled to recover unless the 
 holder receiving payment would be in a worse 
 position if compelled to refund than before 
 he received payment. Vol. 11, p. 96, Aug., 
 1918. 
 
 Statute of Limitations as applied to forged 
 indorsement 
 
 605. (Cal.) A bank paid a check which 
 bore a forged indorsement. A year and two 
 months later it was notified of such forgery. 
 A statute in California provides a one year 
 limitation for the commencement of an ac- 
 tion "by a depositor against a bank for the 
 payment of a forged or raised check." The 
 bank is uncertain as to whether said statute 
 covers forged indorsements. Opinion: A 
 New Jersey case holds that such a statute 
 applies to forged indorsements, but it is 
 doubtful whether the courts will construe the 
 statute in California to cover forged indorse- 
 ments. It is probable that it was the inten- 
 tion tliat the statute should apply to a check 
 bearing forgery of drawer's signature, or to a 
 raised check, and that the limitation applies 
 to depositors who are negligent in failing to 
 discover the forgery or alteration and notify 
 the bank. Vol. 11, p. 435, Feb., 1919. 
 
 606. (N. J.) A bank paid a check with 
 a forged indorsement. The question is asked 
 how long after such pa}'ment, or the return 
 of the check to the maker, has the maker a 
 right of action for the recovery from the 
 paying bank. Opinion: Where a bank pays 
 a check upon a forged indorsement and re- 
 turns the item to the depositor as a paid 
 voucher, the latter's right of action for the 
 deposit, in the absence of specific statute upon 
 the subject, does not accrue until demand 
 made and the statute of limitations does not 
 begin to run until the bank is in default, 
 unless the bank has disclaimed liability so as 
 to make demand unnecessary, in which case 
 riglit of action would accrue at time bank is in 
 default by such denial and would be barred 
 within six years. New Jersey and a large 
 number of states have passed the following 
 statute : "No bank shall be liable to a depos- 
 itor for the payment by it of a forged or 
 raised clieck, unless within one year after 
 the return to the depositor of the voucher of 
 such payment such depositor shall notify the 
 Ijank that the check so paid was forged or 
 raised." It is doubtful whether this statute 
 will be held to apply to actions by a depositor 
 against his banker for money paid on checks 
 bearing forged indorsements. Vol. 10, p. 
 718, April, 1918. 
 
 607. (N. J.) There is a statute in Now 
 Jersey which limits the liability of a bank to 
 its depositor for the payment of forged or 
 raised checks to one year after tlie return of 
 the voucher, unless notice is given the bank. 
 A certain New Jersey decision seems to take 
 the view that this statute covers the payment 
 of a check upon a forged indorsement, but 
 the point was not positively decided and sucii 
 statute has not been generally understood to 
 cover forged indorsements as distinguished 
 from forged or raised checks. Vol. 4, p. 221, 
 Oct., 1911. 
 
 Forged counter-signature to traveler's 
 check or money order 
 
 608. (Mo.) An express company tra- 
 velers' check, upon which there was a forged 
 countersignature of the purciiaser, was cashed 
 ])y a bank for a stranger and paid by the ex- 
 ])ress company. The signature of tiie pur- 
 chaser was placed upon the check at the time 
 it was issued by the company. Opinion: 
 ])<>th bank and express company had equal 
 means of knowing genuineness of counter- 
 signature, and the express company could 
 recover from the bank which received pay- 
 ment under the rule that money paid under 
 
 77
 
 009 
 
 DIGEST OF LEGAL OlMNIONS 
 
 a mutual mistake of fact, without coiiHiflo ra- 
 tion, is recoverable. Vol. 2, ]>. IKl April, 
 1910. 
 
 609. (Tex.) A travelers' cheek, sold by 
 a bank in Nebraska, issued to one II, and pur- 
 chased by a bank in Texas, was lost by II, and 
 his countersignature thereon was forged. 
 Opinion: That the Texas bank having cashed 
 the check upon the forgery took no title and 
 must look solely to the person from whom it 
 purchased for reimbursement. Vol. 6, p. 
 816, Jime, 1914. 
 
 610. (W. Va.) A bank became the in- 
 nocent purchaser of an express money order 
 bearing the forged countersignature of the 
 issuing agent. The order was paid by the 
 company before the forgery was detected. 
 Opinion: In the absence of decided cases on 
 the right of an express company to recover 
 money paid on the forged countersignature 
 of an agent, the question depends upon 
 whether the courts will apply the rule (1) 
 that money paid under mistake of fact is re- 
 coverable, or (2) that the payment is final 
 and irrevocable on the theory (a) that the 
 paying agent is bound to know the signature 
 of the countersigning agent, and (b) that be- 
 tween parties equally innocent the law will 
 place the loss where the course of business has 
 placed it. Vol. 5, p. 668, April, 1913. 
 
 Check signed in fictitious name 
 
 611. (N. Y.) A person signs a check in 
 a fictitious name with intent to defraud. The 
 question is raised as to whether he can be 
 punished as a forger or whether the crime 
 is simply that of larceny or obtaining money 
 under false pretenses when he actually ob- 
 tains money or property thereon, or whether 
 he can be punished under some of the special 
 statutes making criminal the mere issuing of 
 checks against insufficient funds. Opinion: 
 According to the decisions in the various 
 courts, it is well settled that the signing of 
 a check in a fictitious name, with intent to 
 defraud, is a forgery. The importance of 
 this question lies in the fact that the penalty 
 for forgery is more severe than in the other 
 offenses above stated and it is more desirable 
 to prosecute under the forgery statutes. Vol. 
 9, p. 492, Dec, 1916. 
 
 Indorser's warranty to subsequent 
 purchaser 
 
 612. (111.) A bank cashed a check, pay- 
 ment of which was refused on the ground that 
 the drawer's signature was a forgery. The 
 
 bank sought to recover tli(; amount from the 
 indorser. Opinion: The indorser of the check 
 warrants the genuineness of the check to a 
 subsequent purchaser and if the check is 
 forged is liable upon breach of such warranty. 
 Vol. i), p. 656, Feb., 1917. See 556, 560, 
 737. 
 
 Estoppel to assert forgery of indorsement 
 
 613. (111.) A, the maker, forges the in- 
 dorsements of B and C to his note, which is 
 discounted for A by a bank. At maturity B 
 and C are notified but pay no attention there- 
 to, and afterwards B sees the note and instead 
 of disclosing the forgery, says he will en- 
 deavor to get A to renew with additional in- 
 dorsers. Afterwards, upon A's death, leav- 
 ing no estate, B and C assert forgery. Opin- 
 ion: If C's silence when it was his duty to 
 speak, and B's affirmative representation of 
 the genuineness of the indorsements were in- 
 tended to and did prevent the bank from pro- 
 tecting itself from the loss, there would seem 
 fair ground for holding B and perhaps C 
 liable. Vol. 8, p. 1099, June, 1916. 
 
 614. (N. Y.) The maker of a note upon 
 which the indorser's name is forged lets it go 
 to protest. The purported indorser, upon 
 being notified and questioned, does not in- 
 form the bank of the forgery, but makes an 
 evasive reply. After the dishonor of a second 
 note likewise forged, the purported indorser 
 for the first time notified the bank of both 
 forgeries. The maker died insolvent. Opin- 
 ion: The purported indorser is liable if he 
 knew of the forgery of the first note and his 
 failure to notify the bank caused a loss. Vol. 
 6, p. 208, Sept,. 1913 . 
 
 Liability of person identifying 
 impersonator 
 
 615. (Ark.) A bank cashed a forged 
 draft for a forger identified at the bank by A. 
 Opinion: A is liable to the bank, provided 
 he made a false statement of fact upon which 
 the bank relied to its injury. Vol. 7, p. 167, 
 Sept., 1914. 
 
 616. (Colo.) The customer of a bank 
 who identified the holder of a forged check as 
 the payee is liable to the bank cashing the 
 check, because of a false representation, 
 though innocentlv made. Vol. 6, p. 275, 
 Oct., 1913. 
 
 617. 
 
 Forged name of drawee 
 (Okla.) A's check on D bank, in- 
 
 dorsed by B, is paid, and afterwards A trans- 
 
 78
 
 FEAUD AND CRIMES 
 
 625 
 
 fers his account to C bank. One year later 
 the same check with date altered, name of 
 drawee changed to C bank, and hearing an 
 additional indorsement under that of B, is 
 presented by D bank to C bank and paid. The 
 cashier of 1) bank does not know where he got 
 the check and refuses to make its amount 
 good to C bank. Opinion: C bank can re- 
 cover from I) bank which first cashed the al- 
 tered check, under the rule that money paid 
 under a mutual mistake, without considera- 
 tion, is recoveral)le. Vol. 4, p. 308, Nov.. 
 1911. 
 
 Altering name of drawee on forged check 
 
 618. (Neb.) A check signed "II. 
 Greve/' whose signature was forged by the 
 payee, was presented by the payee to the First 
 National Bank of X, Nebraska, as drawee. 
 That bank, having no account with Greve, 
 took it to the X National Bank, where Greve 
 had an account, struck out the word "First," 
 inserted "X," indorsed the check, received the 
 money and paid over the proceeds to the 
 payee. Opinion: In view of the policy of the 
 Nebraska courts to place the responsibility in 
 case of a forged check upon the bank which 
 
 first takes it from the forger, rather than 
 upon the drawee which mistakes the signature 
 and pays it, as between the two banks, the 
 First National Bank would be responsible for 
 the loss. Vol. 2, p. 415, April, 1910. 
 
 Forged draft against lost letter of credit 
 
 619. (Wyo.) A bank purchasing a 
 forged draft against a lost letter of credit is 
 the loser unless the draft is paid by the 
 drawee, in which case the latter would prob- 
 ably be bound by payment. Vol. G, p. 817, 
 Juno. 1914. See 812. 
 
 Check dated on Sunday 
 
 620. (Ind.) A decision in Michigan 
 holds that the uttering of a forged check, 
 dated on Sunday, is not a crime because an 
 instrument void on its face cannot be the 
 subject of forgery. The decisions bearing on 
 the subject of the forgery of checks, dated on 
 Sunday, both in states where the common 
 law prevails that Sunday contracts are valid, 
 and in states where such contracts are made 
 void by statute, are collected and discussed in 
 Vol. 4, p. 547, March, 1912. 
 
 FRAUD AND CRIMES 
 
 Criminal liability for issuing bad checks 
 
 Note: A statute rccommcMided by tlie American 
 Bankers Association to punish the giving of cliecks 
 or drafts without sufliciont funds in bank and 
 making the issue of the insufficient check prima 
 facie evidence of intent to defraud lias })een passed 
 in nearly all tlie states, with various modifica- 
 tions. States still needing this law arc Mary- 
 land, Massachusetts, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania; 
 also the District of Columbia. 
 
 621. (Ark.) Where a per.son gave a 
 worthless check and obtained money or any- 
 thing of value therefor, he could be prosecuted 
 criminally, but if he simply gave the check 
 in payment of some existing indebtedness, 
 there would not be a criminal offense. Vol. 
 6, p. 36, July, 1913. 
 
 622. (Colo.) A corporation having its 
 account in a Colorado bank has been in the 
 habit of overdrawing. The bank seeks to 
 punish the president and treasurer of the cor- 
 poiation, although none of the checks bear 
 their signatures. Opinion : Where a st^itute 
 makes it a misdemeanor for any person, with 
 intent to defraud, to issue a check upon a 
 bank wherein the maker lias insuflicient 
 funds, and a corporation depositor habitually 
 overdraws its account, the corporation as well 
 
 as the issuing officer is liable to prosecution, 
 and the president and treasurer who do not 
 sign such checks but have knowledge of and 
 power to prevent their issue are, probably, 
 also subject to jirosecution. Vol. 11, p. 42, 
 July, 1918. 
 
 623. (Fla.) A owed a bank $500. evi- 
 denced by a note which at maturity the bank 
 agreed to renew. A sent a renewal note upon 
 which the bank surrendered the original. A 
 also sent a worthless check for the advance 
 interest. Ojnnion: The giving of the worth- 
 less check did not violate the Florida criminal 
 law.s, because A did not obtain anything of 
 value thereby. Vol. 5, p. 171, Sept.. 1912. 
 
 624. (111.) A person in Illinois negoti- 
 ated a worthless check against an account in 
 which he had only a nominal Italance of 48 
 centos. The drawee bank had refu.^ed many 
 similar checks and the depositor could not 
 claim that he thought he had money on de- 
 posit. Ojnniou: The person could be pun- 
 ished ( riiniiuilly for obtaining money under 
 false preten.ses and with intent to defraud. 
 Vol. 8, p. 39. July, 1915. 
 
 625. (Kan.) A person issued a check 
 on a Kansas bank where he never carried an 
 
 79
 
 62G 
 
 DIGEST OF LEGAL OPINIONS 
 
 account. Tlie bank seeks to liold liini liable 
 for obtaining money under false pretenses. 
 Opinion: The burden is upon the state to 
 prove the drawer's intent to defraud, but it es- 
 tul)lif;lics a prima facie case vhcre it sliows 
 that the drawer issued a check on a bank 
 where he never carried an account. Vol. 5, 
 p. 83'.\ July, 1013. 
 
 626. (Mich.) A man drew two checks 
 on his bank in Wasliington without having 
 sufficient funds to meet them, and obtained 
 cash thereon from a bank in ^lichigan. The 
 drawer has returned to Washington. Opin- 
 ion: The purchasing bank can bring an action 
 to recover the amount of the protested checks. 
 If the drawer can be located in Michigan, he 
 probably can be punished criminally for ol)- 
 taining money under false pretenses. A^ol. 
 3, p. 585, April, 1911. 
 
 627. (S. Dak.) xV person issued checks 
 on a bank in South Dakota where he never 
 had an account. Under the law of that state 
 he is guilty of a felony where he either ob- 
 tains or attempts to obtain money or prop- 
 erty thereon. There is no statute in South 
 Dakota similar to that enacted in several of 
 the states, which makes the mere issuing of 
 a "not good" check, with intent to defraud, 
 a crime. Vol. 3, p. 335, Dec, 1910. 
 
 Obtaining bill of lading under false 
 pretenses 
 
 628. (Ala.) A bank received for collec- 
 tion a draft with a bill of lading attached. 
 The consignee obtained the bill of lading 
 upon tender of a check to the bank and re- 
 ceived the goods. The consignee, asserting 
 that the freight on the goods was not prepaid, 
 stopped payment on the check, but at the 
 same time retained the goods and refused to 
 pay the bank. Opinion: The consignee can 
 be convicted of obtaining goods under false 
 pretenses if it can be proved that, at the time 
 he gave his check in order to get the bill of 
 lading and the goods, he intended to stop 
 pajTnent. The action must be brought with- 
 in three years if a felony, and within one year 
 if a misdemeanor. Vol. 6, p. 99, Aug., 1913. 
 
 Burglary policy of the American Bankers 
 Association 
 
 629. (Miss.) The American Bankers 
 Association Burglary Policy covers opening 
 safes by "chemicals or electricity," as well as 
 by "tools or explosives." Vol. 5, p. 246, Oct., 
 1912. 
 
 Conspiracy to commit robbery 
 
 630. (Ark.) A person, learning that a 
 shipment of currency is to be made by one 
 bank to another, proposed to another person 
 to commit robbery, pointing out the subject 
 of the robbery and outlining a plan; but the 
 second person refused and the first person 
 went no further. Opinion: The first person 
 was guilty of a misdemeanor in soliciting a 
 person to commit robbery. Vol. 8, p. 39, 
 July, 1915. 
 
 Conversion of notes by innkeeper 
 
 631. (Fla.) W. S. S., a lodger at a 
 boarding house, died, and among his effects 
 were two notes for $200 and $180 respec- 
 tively, which were not indorsed by him. 
 W. W. S., the boarding-house keeper, indorsed 
 the notes in his own name, cashed them at a 
 bank, and appropriated the money thus col- 
 lected in satisfaction of an alleged board bill. 
 The makers who through a Nebraska bank 
 paid the notes are sued by the estate of 
 W. W. S. Opinion: The innkeeper in col- 
 lecting the notes in the method used was 
 guilty of conversion, and the makers are still 
 liable to the estate, although the makers in 
 turn can recover from the Nebraska bank the 
 money as having been paid under a mistake 
 of fact without consideration; and the Ne- 
 braska bank can recover from W. W. S. on the 
 same grounds. W. W. S. would not be crim- 
 inally liable for larceny or embezzlement if it 
 could be shown he collected the notes in good 
 faith under a supposed claim of title. Vol. 
 4, p. 619, April, 1912. 
 
 Delivery of goods without taking up 
 w^arehouse receipt 
 
 632. (N. Y.) The Uniform Warehouse 
 Receipts Act passed in Louisiana in 1908 
 among other provisions contains one punish- 
 ing an officer or agent of a warehouse who 
 delivers goods represented by a negotiable 
 receipt without taking up the receipt. Vol. 
 1, p. 204, Dec, 1908. 
 
 Fidelity bonds 
 
 633. (Cal.) Upon application for re- 
 newal of a fidelity bond for its employee, a 
 banking corporation upon request execut-es a 
 certificate to the surety company stating 
 that his books and accounts have been ex- 
 amined and found correct in every respect. 
 A loss through a dishonest employee was 
 thereafter discovered, wliich had actually 
 
 80
 
 FRAUD AXD CRIMES 
 
 [640 
 
 taken place during the life of the original 
 policy. Opinion: The surety company would 
 be liable for the loss under the original policy 
 and the certificate of renewal would not affect 
 such liability. The execution of such form 
 of renewal certificate is objectionable from a 
 banker's standpoint because there is danger 
 that the renewal bond may be declared by the 
 courts to be void if the certificate is regarded 
 as a false representation of a material fact. 
 Vol. 5, p. 26, July, 1912. 
 
 634. (N. Y.) The teller of a bank without 
 authority dishonestly allows overdrafts and 
 hides them from the management of the bank. 
 The bank holds the American Bankers As- 
 sociation's Standard Form of Fidelity Bond. 
 Opinion: Such bond insures the bank against 
 any loss that shall happen '^through the dis- 
 honesty of any of the (bonded) employees 
 or through any act of omission or commissioTi 
 of any of the employees done or omitted in 
 bad faith and not through mere negligence, 
 incompetency or error in judgment. This 
 bond is broad enough to cover the loss in this 
 case. Bad faith and dishonesty is the test 
 by which liability under the bond is deter- 
 mined. Vol. 6, p. 684, April, 1914. 
 
 Firm checks issued through fraud 
 of employee 
 
 635. (Tenn.) A firm through tlie fraud 
 of an employee signed checks (1) payable to 
 the order of the employee, (2) payable to the 
 order of the X bank, and (3) payable to 
 other persons bearing forged indorsements of 
 the payees. These checks were all deposited 
 by the employee in the X bank and checked 
 out by the employee, and the firm seeks re- 
 imbursement from the bank. Opinion: (1) 
 As to the checks payable to the employee, the 
 X bank is not responsible to the firm; (2) as 
 to the checks payable to the X bank, there is 
 conflict of authority whether or not the bank 
 is responsible; and (3) as to checks payable 
 to third persons whose indorsements were 
 forged, the bank is responsible, according to 
 the weight of authority, notwithstanding the 
 trust and confidence imposed by the firm in 
 the employee. Vol. 1, p. 96, Sept., 1908. 
 
 Introducing swindler to bank 
 
 636. (Tenn.) A bank cashed a check 
 in the sum of $105 for a stranger who was 
 correctly introduced by a customer using 
 these words : "This man is all right, ])lease 
 wait on him." The stranger was a swindler, 
 and his check was no good. Opinion: The 
 customer was not liable for the swindler's 
 
 fraud because his statement was a matter of 
 opinion and not of fact. Vol. 2, p. 20, Julv, 
 1909. See 182, 615, 616. 
 
 Obtaining money under false pretenses 
 
 Sue 28 1, 04U 
 
 637. (Pa.) A customer drew two checks, 
 for $200 and $300 respectively. Although 
 the customer's deposit was insufficient the 
 bank promised to pay the checks upon the 
 customer's false promise that he would have 
 enough money to cover the checks when his 
 wagons came in the next morning. The 
 checks were paid, but the customer closed out 
 his business without reimbursing the bank. 
 Opinion: The customer could not be held 
 criminally for obtaining money under fals-.* 
 pretenses, because the pretense relied upon by 
 the bank must relate to a past or an existing 
 fact and not upon any representation as to 
 the future, as in this ease, Vol. 4, p. 427, 
 Jan., 1912. 
 
 638. (Tenn.) A daughter signed her 
 father's name to a check per her own and 
 cashed it at a bank. Payment of the check 
 was refused because tlie father, upon beinof 
 notified of the check by the drawee, refused 
 to pay any attention to it. Twice before the 
 daughter had signed such checks, the first 
 one being paid Init the second refused, the 
 daughter afterwards inducing her fatiier to 
 settle. The forwarding bank delayed two 
 months, expecting either the father or daugh- 
 ter to settle. Opinion: If the check was un- 
 authorized, the daughter can be prosecuted 
 criminally for obtaining money under false 
 pretenses, but not for forgery. The bank has 
 no recourse against the father but only 
 against tlie daughter, and its delay would not 
 affect its rights. Vol. 6, p. 98, Aug., 1913. 
 
 639. (Wyo.) A bank in Wyoming asked 
 its correspondent at L. to pay Mr. F. $100, 
 wliich was due him from a bank in >raryl;ind. 
 In the meantime and through error the ^fary- 
 land bank wired the correspondent at L. to 
 l)ay Mr. F. $100. :\rr. F. received the $20(», 
 knowing that he was only entitled to $1(KI. 
 Opinion: A person receiving money knowing 
 he is not entitled to it, from one who believes 
 he is entitled to it, without making any other 
 false representiition or preten.«;e. is proliably 
 not guilty of a crime under the false pretense 
 statute of \Vvomin<r. Vol. 5, p. 98, Aug., 
 1912. 
 
 Passing worthless state bank bill 
 
 640. (Tenn.) A person passing for value 
 a genuine but worthless bill of a state bank 
 
 81
 
 641 
 
 DIGEST OF LECAL OPINIONS 
 
 no longer in existence, is not guilty of any 
 crime under the Federal law, but might in a 
 proper case be held under a state statute pun- 
 ishing the obtaining of money under false 
 pretense. Vol. 4, p. 426, Jan., 1912. 
 
 Photographing United States notes 
 
 641. (Pa.) The United States Criminal 
 Code prohibits the making of photographs of 
 any obligation or other security of the United 
 States, except under authority of the Secre- 
 tary of the Treasury. Vol. 9, p. 900, May, 
 1917. 
 
 Possession of forged instrument with 
 intent to defraud 
 
 642. (Ark.) A person of criminal ten- 
 dencies has in his possession and exhibits a 
 forged certified check in the sum of $5,000 
 upon a bank in another state, but so far as 
 known has made no attempt to realize any- 
 thing on the instrument. Opinion: A per- 
 son may be convicted of forgery by having 
 possession of a forged instrument with intent 
 to defraud, although never uttered by him, 
 but unless something was said or done by 
 the possessor to indicate an intent to defraud, 
 the mere possession of the forged instrument 
 would not constitute a crime. Vol. 8, p. 39, 
 July, 1915. 
 
 Renunciation of interest by heir procured 
 by fraud 
 
 643. (Kan.) A died without a will, 
 leaving a widow and no children. His estate 
 consisted of 320 acres of land and other prop- 
 erty worth $10,000. The widow falsely rep- 
 resented to A's sister that it was necessary to 
 obtain her afhdavit renouncing lier interest in 
 her brother's estate in order to probate the 
 estate. On these representations the sister 
 gave her affidavit. Opinion: A court of 
 equity would revoke the sister's renunciation 
 and enable her to claim her share as heir of 
 the estate. Vol. 6, p. 821, June, 1914. 
 
 Statement to procure credit 
 
 544. (Conn.) The question is raised as 
 to whether the requirement of verification 
 under oath by the maker of a statement of 
 his financial condition for the purpose of pro- 
 curing credit, would result in the imposition 
 of a heavier i^enalty in case of falsity than 
 where the statement is unsworn. Opinion: 
 The taking of a false oath by the maker of a 
 false financial statement would not be per- 
 jury, the statement not being required by law 
 or made in a judicial proceeding. It would 
 be "false swearing," but as such is not a 
 crime. The only effect of requiring a sworn 
 statement would seem to be the moral effect 
 upon the judge in whose discretion rests the 
 severity of the penalty. Vol. 11, p. 610, May, 
 1919. " 
 
 HOLDER IN DUE COURSE 
 
 Rediscounted note 
 
 645. (Cal.) A negotiable note payable 
 to a national bank is rediscounted with a 
 Federal Eeserve Bank and the maker without 
 knowledge thereof and before maturity, pays 
 the note to the national bank, which misap- 
 propriates the money and two days later closes 
 its doors. The maker did not obtain a sur- 
 render of the note. The Federal Reserve 
 Bank demands payment of the note. Opin- 
 ion: The maker is liable on the note to the 
 Federal Eeserve Bank, which is a holder in 
 due course, but is probably entitled to pre- 
 ferred payment for the full amount from the 
 assets of the failed national bank. Vol. 11, 
 p. 560, April, 1919. 
 
 Holder in due course of stopped check 
 
 See 1235, 1265 et scq 
 
 646. (Cal.) A gave B a check for $500 
 which was indorsed by B to C and was sup- 
 
 posed to cover the pay roll of B. C issued his 
 checks payable to B's employees and later dis- 
 covered that A's check was not good. C 
 then stopped payment of his checks. Opin- 
 ion : Under the common law rule the payees of 
 C's checks are protected as holders in due 
 course and as such they are free from C's de- 
 fense of fraud or lack of consideration, which 
 he mav have against B. Vol. 9, p. 419, Nov., 
 1916.' 
 
 647. (Ind.) A purchased a draft of 
 Bank B, drawn on Bank iST, payable to C. 
 A mailed the draft to C, who negotiated it to 
 D, a holder in due course. Bank B at A's 
 request stopped payment. Opinion: D, the 
 holder in due course, can enforce paAinent of 
 the draft against Bank B, the drawer, free 
 from defenses available against C, the pavee. 
 Vol. 7, p. 305, Xov., 1914. 
 
 648. (Iowa.) A bank which purchases a 
 cashier's check from the holder, assuming it 
 
 82
 
 HOLIDAYS, SATURDAY AND SUNDAY 
 
 660 
 
 is properly indorsed and within a reasonable 
 time after its issue, can recover the amount 
 from the issuing bank free from any defense 
 which that bank may have against the payee. 
 The innocent purchaser of a stopped check 
 may enforce payment from the drawer. Vol. 
 6, p. 629, March, 1914. 
 
 649. (N. Dak.) A bank issued a draft and 
 afterwards stopped payment because the 
 payee gave as part payment a worthless check 
 of a third person. Opinion: The issuing 
 bank cannot be held liable by the payee for so 
 much thereof as is represented by the worth- 
 
 less check; but if the draft was transferred, 
 the bank would be liable to a holder in due 
 course for the full amount. Vol. 5, p. 447, 
 Jan,. 191:^. 
 
 650. (N. Y.) A customer deposited a 
 check and received credit for the amount, 
 $295 of which he checked out before payment 
 of the deposited check was stopped. Opin- 
 ion: The bank of deposit was a holder in due 
 course to the extent of the amount paid out 
 against such deposit, and in this case can re- 
 cover $295 from the maker of the deposited 
 check. Vol. 5, p. 25, July, 1912. 
 
 HOLIDAYS, SATURDAY AND SUNDAY 
 
 Instrument executed on holiday 
 
 651. (Miss.) A document signed on a 
 legal holiday is valid unless the act is ex- 
 pressly prohibited by the statute creating the 
 holiday. Vol. 9, p. 146, Aug., 1916. 
 
 652. (S. Dak.) In South Dakota a check 
 or note dated on Sunday or on a holiday 
 would in all probability be held valid, al- 
 though there is no decision on the point. 
 Vol. 6, p. 758, May, 1914. 
 
 653. (Wash.) In Washington a note 
 and mortgage executed, acknowledged and 
 delivered on a legal holiday is not prohibited 
 by statute and is valid. Vol. 5, p. 656, April, 
 1913. 
 
 Instrument maturing on Saturday 
 
 See 660 
 
 654. (Mo.) Under the Negotiable In- 
 struments Law of Missouri a negotiable in- 
 strument falling due on Saturday, other than 
 one payable on demand, cannot be presented 
 for payment and protested until the next suc- 
 ceeding business day. Vol. 4, p. 617, April, 
 1912. 
 
 655. (N. C.) Saturday afternoon in 
 North Carolina is not a half holiday and pre- 
 sentment and protest can be made on Satur- 
 day afternoon the same as on the afternoon of 
 any other business day. Vol. 1, p. 204, Dec, 
 1908. 
 
 Note: In 1019 a statute recommended by tlic 
 American Bankers Association was passed provid- 
 ing that the payment, certification or accei)tance 
 of a check or other nej^otiahle instrument, if done 
 or performed on a Saturday afternoon or on a 
 legal lioliday, is valid. In 1007 the Saturday 
 half holiday recognized by the Negotiable Instru- 
 ments Law was abolished by statute. 
 
 656. (Pa.) By statute in Pennsylvania, 
 a note otherwise presentable for payment on 
 Saturday is "payable" on the next business 
 day, hence a bank owning a note so payable 
 
 would be entitled to interest for two added 
 days and a renewal note should be dated 
 Monday. Vol. 7, p. 38, July, 1914. 
 
 Note: In 1917 a statute recommended by the 
 American Bankers Association was passed, mak- 
 ing the payment of a negotiable instrument on 
 a Saturday afternoon valid. 
 
 Notes executed and delivered on Sunday 
 
 657. (N. Y.) At conmion law a note 
 executed and delivered on Smiday is valid, 
 but in many states the courts have held such 
 notes void by reason of Sunday statutes. In 
 New York the execution and delivery of such 
 notes not being acts characterized as "serious 
 interruptions of the repose and religious 
 liberty of the community" would probably be 
 held valid. Vol. 4, p. 308, Nov., 1911. 
 
 658. (Tex.) At common law, Sunday 
 contracts are lawful and except in those states 
 where, by statute, the execution and delivery 
 of a note on Sunday is prohibited, a note 
 dated on Sunday is valid. Texas has no such 
 prohibitory statute. Vol. 6, p. 9(i. Aug.. 1 !»!:!. 
 
 Payment of check on holiday 
 
 659. (Ala.) In tiic absence of judicial 
 decision upon the precise point, payment of 
 a check on a holiday would be of uncertiiin 
 validity and at the risk of the bank, !?iiould 
 the drawer stop payment at the o|)ening of 
 business on the next l)usiiiess dav. Vol. 5, 
 p. 829, June, 1913. 
 
 660. (111.) In Illinois (1) Saturday is 
 a legal half-holiday in cities of 200,000 or 
 more, and in such cities paper maturing on 
 Saturdays matures and is presentable and 
 protestable the following business day, except 
 checks and other demand paper are at the 
 holder's option presentable on Saturday fore- 
 noon and protestable the same day (2) ; in 
 cities of under 200,000 Saturday is not a legal 
 
 83
 
 661] 
 
 DIGEST OF LEGAL OPINIONS 
 
 half-holiday except tliat tlie Negotiable In- 
 struments Act postpones presentment of all 
 Saturday maturing paper to the following 
 business da}^, with like option to the holder of 
 checks and other demand ])aper to present 
 Saturday forenoon and protest the same day. 
 Vol. 9, p. 750, March, 1917. 
 
 661. (Kan.) It is unsafe in the present 
 condition of the law for a bank to pay a 
 check upon a holiday. Saturday afternoon 
 is not a half-holiday in Kansas, but in view 
 of the Negotiable Instruments Law relating 
 to presentment for payment on Saturday, 
 payment of a check on Saturday afternoon 
 except to the drawer would be at the risk of 
 the bank. Vol. 7, p. 582, Feb., 1915. 
 
 Note: In May, 1915, a statute was passed, 
 making the payment of a negotiable instrument 
 
 on 11 Satmdiiy afternoon or upon any legal holi- 
 day valid. 
 
 662, (Ohio.) In the present condition 
 of the law and in the absence of direct judicial 
 precedent, jiayment of a check on a holiday 
 or lialf lioli(hiy would be of uncertain validity 
 and at the risk of the bank, should the 
 drawer stop payment at the opening of Ijusi- 
 ness on the next business day. Vol. 5, p. 
 654, April, 1913. 
 
 Note: In May, 1913, a statute was passed, 
 making the payment of a negotiable instrument 
 on a Saturday afternoon, which is by law a half 
 holiday, valid. 
 
 663. (S. C.) In view of the authorities 
 and in the absence of a prohibitory statute, 
 it would seem that a bank in South Carolina 
 could safely pay a check dated on Sunday or 
 on a holiday. Vol. 5, p. 589, March, 1913. 
 
 HUSBAND AND WIFE 
 
 See Married \Y 
 Authority to draw checks 
 
 664. (Cal.) A depositor who authorized 
 his wife to draw against his account died, 
 leaving a balance of less than $500. Opin- 
 ion: The husband's death revoked his wife's 
 authority to draw^ checks, and also revoked 
 all his outstanding checks; but by a statute 
 in California, not exceeding $500 of a de- 
 cedent's deposit may be paid to a surviving ■ 
 wife or husband upon affidavit. A"ol. 6, p. 
 578, Feb., 1914. 
 
 665. (La.) A man deposits $100 to the 
 credit of his wife and informs the bank that 
 his wife has instructed him to sign checks. 
 The bank asks if it would be safe in relying 
 upon the husband's word without proof of 
 authority from the wife. Opinion: The bank 
 would not be safe in paying the husband's 
 checks because if the deposit Avas her separate 
 property and under her separate administra- 
 tion, the husband would have no right to 
 withdraw the deposit, and payment to him 
 where he had not been authorized would not 
 protect the bank ; although if the deposit was 
 community property or constituted a portion 
 of her separate estate that Avas under the 
 control and administration of the Imsband, 
 the latter would probably have the right to 
 withdraw the deposit without authority of 
 the wife. The system of community prop- 
 erty prevails in some of the Southwestern and 
 Pacific states, including Louisiana and Texas. 
 Vol. 7, p. 582, Feb., 1915. 
 
 666. (N. Y.) A check signed "John Doe 
 per Jennie Doe" was presented to a bank, 
 
 omen, 834-843 
 
 which carried an account for John Doe. 
 Jennie Doe was John Doe's wife but no au- 
 thorization to pay was filed with the bank. 
 Opinion: In the absence of authority from 
 John Doe, the bank should not pay such 
 check. If checks so signed are honored, the 
 husband can recover unless he has authorized 
 or ratified the act. Vol. 5, p. 245, Oct., 1912. 
 
 Husband's account in name of wife 
 
 667. (Pa.) A married man opened a 
 savings account in the name of his wife and 
 daughter. The husband and wife having sep- 
 arated, both claim owmership and control of 
 the amount deposited. Opinion: The mere 
 opening of a savings account by a husband 
 in the name of his wife and daughter does 
 not constitute a completed gift in tlie absence 
 of delivery of the pass-book or other evidence 
 of the deposit or of other facts indicating per- 
 fection of the gift, and so long as the gift is 
 not completed it may be revoked bv the hus- 
 band. Vol. 8, p. 609, Jan., 1916. ' 
 
 Husband's account in trust for wife 
 
 668. (N. Y.) ^Yhe^e a savings account is 
 held by a husband in trust for his wife and 
 both perish in same disaster, no presumption 
 at common law^ that one survived the other, 
 but survivorship must be proved — if wife sur- 
 vived husband, her next of kin entitled to de- 
 posit, but if husband survived wife or both 
 died simultaneously, deposit goes to hus- 
 band's next of kin. Vol. 5, p. 593, March, 
 1913. 
 
 8i
 
 G77 
 
 INDORSER— INDORSEMENT 
 
 Absence of payee's indorsement 
 
 St-e (iSO, 715, 1132, 11:M 
 
 669. (Mass.) A check payable to two 
 persons was indorsed by one and deposited. 
 The bank stamped "indorsements guaran- 
 teed" and the check was paid by the drawee. 
 Opinion: The indorsement would be held to 
 guarantee tlie drawee against loss or injury 
 caused by the absence of the indorsement. 
 Assuming the transfer was without authority 
 of the non-indorsing payee, the drawee could 
 recover. Vol. 4, p. 300, Nov., 1911. 
 
 Indorsement by alternative payee 
 
 670. (Kan.) A bank issued a certificate 
 of deposit payable to the order of John Smith 
 or Mary Smith. The hank raises the ques- 
 tion wliether such certificate requires the in- 
 dorsement of both parties. Ojnnion: The 
 order to pay is complete and sufficient upon 
 the indorsement of either pa3'ee. Vol. 9, p. 
 652, Feb., 1917. 
 
 Authority of agent to indorse 
 See 328, 332, 447, 708, 900 
 
 671. (Ala.) An attorney who was em- 
 ployed by a merchant to collect a note payable 
 to said merchant, received from the maker a 
 check covering the amount, which was drawn 
 in favor of the merchant. The attorney in- 
 dorsed the check as attorney for tlie merchant 
 and then by himself personally and deposited 
 it to his personal account in his bank. He 
 later used all the money from his own account 
 and moved away. The merchant seeks to re- 
 cover from the bank. Opinion: An attorney 
 employed to collect a note has no authority, 
 solely by reason of such employment, to in- 
 dorse his client's name to a check, payable to 
 such client, received in collection, and the 
 drawee which pays such clieck upon such in- 
 dorsement is responsible if the money is mis- 
 appropriated, unless it can prove that the 
 client authorized the attorney to so indorse. 
 Vol. 10, p. 206, Sept., 1917. 
 
 672. (111.) Where the clerk of a depos- 
 itor entrusted with a rubber stamp containing 
 an indorsement by depositor to bank, uses the 
 stamp upon checks of which the depositor is 
 payee and receives the cash thereon from the 
 bank, which he misappropriates, concealing 
 his crime for a considerable period ])ecause of 
 his function to receive the monthly state- 
 ments. Opinion: The liability of bank to de- 
 
 positor depend upon whether (1) the clerk 
 had authority to collect as well as to indorse 
 to the bank; (2) if without original author- 
 ity, depositor has ratified his acts, or (3) de- 
 positor has been negligent, and if none of 
 above conditions e.xist, the bank is liable. 
 Vol. 10, p. 204, Sept., 1917. _ 
 
 673. (Me.) A employed B as his agent 
 to collect his accounts. A check was drawn 
 payable to A, on which B without authority 
 indorsed his principal's name, as well as his 
 own. The drawee, knowing that B was the 
 agent of A, paid the check. Opinion: The 
 drawee is liable to the drawer for having paid 
 the check upon the unauthorized forged in- 
 dorsement of the payee. B's authority to 
 collect accounts does not include authority to 
 indorse his principal's name to checks payable 
 to the principal. Vol. 4, p. 26, July, 1911. 
 
 674. (Md.) A bookkeeper authorized 
 to indorse checks for deposit to the credit of 
 a firm has no authority to indorse notes pay- 
 able to his firm for the i)urpose of discount 
 and credit, and the bank should require a 
 power of attorney. Vol. 4, p. 432, Jan., 
 1912. 
 
 675. (Minn.) A check payable to John 
 Doe & Co. is indorsed to B by an unauthorized 
 agent. B indorsed to C and guaranteed all 
 prior indorsements and C collected from the 
 drawee. Opinion: The drawee bank can re- 
 cover from C as the apparent owner of the 
 check. Vol. 4. p. 3:6, Dec., 1911. 
 
 676. (Mont.) The agent of a railroad 
 company deposited to his personal account 
 two checks payable to the company and in- 
 dorsed '"U, Agent C L'aihvay Co." Opin- 
 ion: In the absence of exjiress or implied an- 
 tliority, a railroad agent cannot indorse checks 
 ])ayable to his comiJany and deposit them to 
 his ])ersonal credit, and the depository bank 
 would be liable if the agent misapplied the 
 funds. Vol. 6. p. 2:6, Oct., 1913. 
 
 677. (Neb.) A check payable to a firm 
 is given to its agent and cashed by a bank 
 upon the indorsement of the firm by the 
 agent. The check is collected. Thirty days 
 later it turns out the agent had no authority 
 to indorse and the firm did not receive the 
 money. Opinion: The bank which cashed 
 the check is liable to refund to the drawee, 
 and the elapsing of thirty days before the dis- 
 covery does not relieve it from liability. Vol. 
 4, p. 302, Nov., 1911. 
 
 85
 
 678 
 
 DIGEST OF LEGAL OPINIONS 
 
 678. (Wis.) A check payable to a firm 
 was indorsed by the agent of the firm witfiout 
 authority, was cashed by a bank, and paid by 
 the drawee. Opinion: The cashing bank wa^ 
 lial)le to the drawee for a return of the money, 
 irrespective of whether the indorsement was 
 guaranteed. The rule stated is that money 
 paid under a mistake of fact without consid- 
 eration is recoverable. Vol. 2, p. 830, Dec, 
 1909. 
 
 Bearer checks do not legally require 
 indorsement 
 
 See 288 et seq 
 
 679. (La.) A check was presented "pay 
 to the order of bearer, ten dollars," and a 
 bank refused to cash it until the bearer in- 
 dorsed it. Opinion : The indorsement cannot 
 legally be required. A check payable to 
 "order of bearer" is the equivalent of one pay- 
 able to bearer. Vol. 3, p. 732, June, 1911. 
 
 680. (S. Dak.) Where a check is indorsed 
 in blank by the payee it is payable to bearer 
 and does not require indorsement by each 
 successive holder. Where a check is pre- 
 sented in person by a payee some courts hold 
 that he cannot be compelled to indorse as a 
 pre-requisite of payment, others holding the 
 contrary view, which is preferred. Vol. 6, 
 p. 755, May, 1914. 
 
 Blank indorsement followed by special 
 indorsement 
 
 See 288, 726 
 
 681. (Minn.) Where an indorsement in 
 blank is followed by a special indorsement, 
 the instrument remained payable to bearer 
 under the common law rule, but under the 
 Negotiable Instruments Act, the question is 
 in doubt w^hether Section 9(5) deprives such 
 instrument of bearer character, or whether 
 Sections 34, 35 and 40 apply, under which 
 the instrument would still be payable to 
 bearer. Where the instrument is on its face 
 payable to bearer, a special indorsement does 
 not change its character. Vol. 8, p. 509, 
 Dec, 1915. 
 
 682. (Mont.) A check was indorsed in 
 blank by the payee A and given to B, who in- 
 dorsed specially to C. The check was lost 
 and cashed for the finder by E without C's in- 
 dorsement. Opinion: Under the existing 
 condition of the law it is very doubtful 
 whether E holds a check payable to bearer, or 
 takes a good and enforceable title as holder 
 in due course without C's indorsement. Vol. 
 4, p. 29, July, 1911. 
 
 683. (Wash.) A note on its face pay- 
 able to bearer and note payable to order in- 
 dorsed in blank by payee are both payable to 
 l)earer and negotiable by delivery, Ijut first 
 cannot while second can be converted into 
 order instrument by special indorsement writ- 
 ten over blank indorsement. Whether special 
 indorsement written under blank indorsement 
 converts paper into order instrument unde- 
 cided and uncertain. Vol. 10, p. 119, Aug., 
 1917. 
 
 Right to charge indorser's account 
 
 684. (Pa.) A bank has the right to 
 charge a dishonored note to the indorser's ac- 
 count, provided the latter's liability is duly 
 fixed by protest and notice. Vol. 3, p. 146, 
 Sept., 1910. See 1203 et seq. Set off 
 against indorser's account. 
 
 "Credit account of within-named payee" 
 
 685. (N. J.) A issues his check to the 
 order of B. B deposits it unindorsed in his 
 bank, which stamps on the back "deposited 
 to the credit of the within-named payee," 
 followed by the name of the bank. A gen- 
 eral discussion is requested of the duty and 
 obligation of the drawee in cases of this 
 nature. Opinion: The drawee is not legally 
 obliged to pay a check unindorsed by the 
 payee, even upon guaranty of the missing in- 
 dorsement. But in general the drawee would 
 be justified in paying upon guaranty as such 
 paj^ments in the large majority of cases would 
 facilitate business. In a minority of cases 
 vrt-l^e the payee had no title, or the check was 
 raised, or other valid reason existed, why the 
 check would not be chargeable to the drawer's 
 account, the guaranty would protect the bank. 
 In special cases where the drawer might desire 
 the personal indorsement of the payee, pay- 
 ment even upon guaranty should be refused. 
 Payment without guaranty would be at the 
 risk of the bank in jurisdictions where an in- 
 dorsement for deposit is held restrictive and 
 to create a mere agency to collect in, and not 
 to confer title, upon the bank of deposit, for 
 a mere agent is not responsible after turning 
 over the proceeds. The sufficiency and effect- 
 iveness of different forms of indorsement and 
 of guarantv are considered in Vol. 4, p. 300. 
 Nov., 19 IL 
 
 686. (N. J.) The indorsement of the 
 payee of a check was missing and the follow- 
 ing indorsement was used : "credited to the 
 account of the within-named payee with the 
 Blank National Bank." Opinion: For all 
 
 86
 
 INDORSEE— INDORSEMENT 
 
 694 
 
 practical purposes the drawee in paying the 
 check would be as safe as it would where the 
 payee had personally indorsed. Vol. 2, p. 
 302, Jan., 1910. See 669. 
 
 "For identification only" 
 
 687. (Ark.) The payee's indorsement of 
 a check was forged and a subsequent holder 
 indorsed the same and procured cash from 
 the purchasing bank upon faith of an in- 
 dorsement by a customer of the bank "for 
 identification only." Opinion: The indorser 
 for identification warranted not only that the 
 indorser was the person he represented him- 
 self to be, but also that he is bona fide in- 
 dorsee with good title. Vol. 6, p. 503, Jan., 
 1914. 
 
 Form and language of indorsement 
 
 See 08.3, 686 
 
 688. (Ark.) A check payable to "Mrs. 
 M. E. Smith" was indorsed "M. E. Smith" 
 and cashed at a bank who forwarded the 
 same with the indorsement "all prior indorse- 
 ments guaranteed." The drawee refused 
 payment. Opinion: The indorsement with- 
 out the prefix "Mrs." was regular and valid 
 and drawee should have honored the check. 
 In a case where an indorsement is insufficient 
 or irregular the drawee is not compelled to 
 pay the check even upon a guaranty, although 
 payment upon such guaranty is customary, 
 but is entitled to a reasonable opportunity of 
 verifying the endorsement before making pay- 
 ment. Vol. 5, p. 756, May, 1913. 
 
 689. (Kan.) A check was made payable 
 to "Mrs. Mary Osage" and indorsed "Mary 
 Osage." When presented to the bank pay- 
 ment was refused upon the claim that the in- 
 dorsement v/as incorrect. Opinion: The in- 
 dorsement "Mary Osage" was proper and 
 legal, and the drawee bank is not justified in 
 refusing payment because of the omission of 
 prefix "Mrs.," said prefix not being part of 
 the name of the payee, but only a title. Vol. 
 11, p. 40, July, 1918. 
 
 690. (Pa.) A check drawn by D. Smith, 
 payable to himself, was certified and paid by 
 the drawee, after the same had l)oen j)ri'sentod 
 by the Blank National Bank, bearing the fol- 
 lowing indorsement: "Pay to the order of J. 
 Hinds, Attorney, D. Smith. Deposit to the 
 credit of J. Jones, Trustee, J. Hinds, Attor- 
 ney. Pay any bank or banker, Bhink Nation- 
 al Bank." Opinion: There is a technical de- 
 fect in Hind's indorsement, which does not 
 show that the deposit is to be credited in the 
 Blank National Bank. The drawee would 
 
 probably be safer in paying if the check was 
 indorsed for deposit in the Blank National 
 Bank to the credit of Jones, Trustee. It 
 would not l)e necessary for the Blank Nation- 
 al Bank to show by its indorsement that the 
 deposit was properly credited as a condition 
 precedent to receiving payment of the check. 
 Vol. 4, p. 27, July, 1911.' 
 
 691. (Pa.) A check was drawn to the 
 order of "Miss E. M. Taylor" and bore the 
 indorsement of "E. M. Taylor." Opinion: 
 The indorsement is in the proper form, as tiie 
 prefix "Miss" is not recognized in law as a 
 part of the payee's name. Vol. 2, p. 233, 
 Dec, 1909. 
 
 692. (Vt.) Where a check is payable to 
 and indorsed by "Treasurer, Congregational 
 Church," such indorsement, while not satis- 
 factory to bankers, assuming the indorsement 
 is by the authorized official, is legally suffi- 
 cient. Vol. 7, p. 1000, June, 1915. " 
 
 693. (Wis.) The indorsement of a check 
 "Pay yourselves or order" would be construed 
 as an indorsement to the drawee and not to 
 another holder to whom the check wiis for- 
 warded. Vol. 5, p. 313, Nov., 1912. 
 
 Drawee's right to require guaranty 
 
 694. (Ore.) A check is drawn by a cus- 
 tomer on his bank in Oregon, payable to a 
 Brick and Tile Company of Newark, New 
 Jersey, and by them indorsed to the Blank 
 National Bank of Newark, who in turn in- 
 dorse with the usual form "Pay to any bank 
 or l)anker or trust company, all prior indorse- 
 ments guaranteed. Blank National Bank." 
 Other indorsements by a national hank and 
 the Federal Reserve bank, both of New York, 
 and by the Federal Reserve bank of San Fran- 
 cisco follow, all making their indorsements 
 read substantially the same as the first in- 
 dorsement with the exception that the last 
 named indorsement makes the check jiayablc 
 direct to tiie Wells Fargo Express Company, 
 guaranteeing all previous indor.'^ements. The 
 local agents of the Express Company indorse 
 without guaranteeing prior indorsements and 
 present the check to the Oregon bank for 
 {)ayment. The bank as a condition of pay- 
 ment, requires the Expres.'^ Company to guar- 
 antee prior indorsements. Opinion: The 
 Express Company appearing from the in- 
 dorsements to 1)0 only an agent for collection, 
 the bank is entitled to a guaranty of prior 
 indorsements a.s a prerequisite to making 
 payment and in the absence of such guar- 
 anty the bank is justified in refusing pay- 
 
 87
 
 G95 
 
 DIGEST OF LEGAL OPINIONS 
 
 ment without ineurriii^' rosponsihility to llic 
 drawer of the check. Vol. i), p. 744, March, 
 1917. 
 
 695. (Tenn.) A check was presented to 
 tlic drawee hank by an express company, an 
 agent for collection, which refused to guar- 
 antee the indorsements on tlie check. The 
 drawee bank refused to pay the check until 
 such guaranty was given. Opinion: The 
 drawee bank has a right to require such guar- 
 anty as a pre-requisite of payment, and its 
 refusal will not subject it to liability to the 
 drawer for dishonoring his check. Vol. 8, 
 p. 415, Nov., 1915. 
 
 Guaranty of defective indorsement 
 
 See 688 
 
 696. (111.) A check payable to J. E. Doe 
 was indorsed Elmer Doe by mistake; the in- 
 dorsement was guaranteed, and when pre- 
 sented, payment of the check was refused. 
 Opinion: Where the indorsement of the payee 
 is defective, the drawee is not obliged to pay 
 upon the guaranty of the indorsement. In 
 the event the drawer withdrew his account 
 before the check w\as properly presented, the 
 loss, if any, would fall upon the owner of the 
 check, who could recover against the drawer. 
 Vol. 6, p. 438, Dec, 1913. 
 
 697. (N. J.) A check drawn payable to 
 "John Jones" is indorsed "John Jones Mill- 
 ing Company," and is indorsed by a bank 
 "prior indorsements guaranteed," and mailed 
 to the drawee. Opinion: The draw^ee can pay 
 if it chooses, relying upon the guaranty. Due 
 diligence or courtesy to the sending bank do 
 not require paying bank to return the item 
 for proper indorsement, as presumably the 
 item has been forwarded with knowledge 
 of the irregularity, and in the hope that it 
 will be paid upon the guaranty. Vol. 5, p. 
 247, Oct., 1912. 
 
 698. (Pa.) A check payable to the "Bor- 
 ough of X" was certified by a bank. The check 
 was presented bearing the indorsement of the 
 "Borough of X, by its attorney, John Smith," 
 and payment was refused because of the im- 
 proper indorsement. The presenting bank 
 then stamped the check "Indorsement guar- 
 anteed" stating that it was satisfied that the 
 attorney was duly authorized to indorse. 
 The Borough of X claimed that John Smith's 
 indorsement was unauthorized and that he 
 misappropriated the funds. Opinion: The 
 presenting bank is liable on its guaranty to 
 the drawee who paid on faith of such guar- 
 
 anty, which covers the capacity of John Smith 
 to indorse. Vol. 3, p. 203, Oct., 1910. 
 
 Indorser discharged by payment 
 
 699. (Iowa.) An agent located at S., of 
 a grain company at D., drew a draft on the 
 grain company payable at a bank at S. The 
 company kept no checking account with the 
 bank, but the latter cashed the draft on the 
 indorsement of the l)ayee, and attaciied its 
 own sight draft on the company for reim- 
 bursement. Opinion: The payment of such 
 draft by the bank was not a purchase, but 
 was a discharge of the draft and of the in- 
 dorser thereon, so that there would be no 
 recourse upon such indorser in the event the 
 company failed to take up the draft. Vol. 7, 
 D. 221, Oct., 1914. 
 
 Indorser as guarantor 
 
 See 966, 1005 
 
 700. (Pa.) Persons other than the payee 
 indorsing on a note "for value received we 
 hereby guarantee payment of the within note" 
 are liable as guarantors and not as indorsers. 
 It would be preferable to have such persons 
 indorse "for value received we hereby guar- 
 antee prompt payment of the within note at 
 maturity" in order to hold them liable as 
 sureties. Vol. 5, p. 172, Sept., 1912. 
 
 Indorser's liability preserved by demand 
 and notice 
 
 See 1109 
 
 701. (Kan.) A indorsed in blank a note 
 payable to a bank without the words "protest 
 waived and payment guaranteed." Opinion : 
 A is liable to payee as indorser. Demand and 
 notice (but not formal protest, which is nec- 
 essary only in case of a foreign bill of ex- 
 change) are necessary to preserve the indorse- 
 er's liability. Vol. 5, p. 520, Feb., 1913. 
 
 702. (Pa.) A note was made payable at 
 and held by a bank. The indorser was not 
 notified of the non-payment of the note at 
 maturity. Opinion: Demand and notice of 
 dishonor are necessary to preserve the in- 
 dorser's liability unless waived. In the pre- 
 sent case the holding of the note at maturity 
 by the bank was sufficient demand, but the 
 omission to notify the indorser discharged 
 him from liabilitv. A'ol. 7, p. 307, Nov., 
 1914. 
 
 Indorsement before payee 
 
 703. (Md.) A made his note payable to 
 C for $1,000. B indorsed the note before the 
 
 88
 
 INDORSEE— INDORSEMENT 
 
 712 
 
 payee. Opinion: Under the Negotiable In- 
 struments Law in force in Maryland, B's con- 
 tract and liability is that of an indorser. Vol. 
 1, p. 267, Jan., 1909. 
 
 704. (N. J.) One indorsing before the 
 payee is liable as an indorser under the Nego- 
 tiable Instruments Law. Vol. 2, p. 233. 
 Dec, 1909. See 701. 
 
 Indorsement by mark 
 
 705. (N, M.) A bank issued a cashier's 
 check, which the payee indorsed to the holder 
 by his mark, witnessed by two reputable per- 
 sons. The issuing bank refused to pay the 
 check on the ground that the payee could 
 write. Opinion: The bank should pay. An 
 indorsement b}^ mark of a negotialile instru- 
 ment is valid and title is transferred tliereby, 
 even though the marksman can write. A"ol. 
 9, p. 237, Sept., 191G. 
 
 706. (Term.) Where the payee of a check 
 indorses by mark and his signature is wit- 
 nessed, the witness' signature can be looked 
 upon as a warranty of the genuineness of the 
 payee's indorsement, the same as a subsequent 
 indorser warrants the genuineness of the sig- 
 nature of each prior indorser. Vol. 1, p. 407, 
 May, 1909. 
 
 707. (Wyo.) A check was presented for 
 payment containing as the payee's indorse- 
 ment an unwitnessed mark. In the absence 
 of an express guaranty of the indorsement the 
 drawee bank may safely pay to a responsible 
 owner who would be liable to refund if the 
 indorsemcTit was forged or unauthorized. Vol. 
 6, p. 376, Nov., 1913. 
 
 Indorsement by partnership 
 
 See 487, 488 
 
 708. (N. Y.) Where a check payable to 
 A and B, who are not partners, is indorsed 
 *'A and B per A" and is ofTered for deposit 
 to the credit of A's personal account, the bank 
 before accepting the deposit sliould be satis- 
 fied tiiat B has authorized A to make such in- 
 dorsement. Where A and B are partners the 
 general rule is that in the case of a trading or 
 commercial firm, any member has implied au- 
 thority to indorse and transfer paper by in- 
 dorsement in the firm name, and such trans- 
 fer may be made to himself. Such authority 
 is not implied in the case of a non-trading 
 firm. Vol. 5, p. 310, Nov., 1912. 
 
 "Pay any bank or banker" 
 See 574 
 
 709. (Ga.) A drew a check payable to 
 himself, which he indorsed and deposited for 
 
 collection in the L bank. Before collection 
 and at A's request the check was returned to 
 him with the bank's uncancelled indorsement, 
 *'pay any bank or banker, prior indorsements 
 guaranteed." A merchant, relying on this 
 indorsement, cashed the check for value and 
 deposited it for collection in the J bank. The 
 check is returned to J bank unpaid, and un- 
 protested. Opinion : The L bank is not liable 
 to the merchant on its indorsement, under 
 which the merchant took no title. The J 
 bank is not liable to tlie merchant for negli- 
 gence as protest in this case was unnecessary 
 to charge the indorser. The form of in- 
 dorsement in this case is generally held to be 
 agent-creating and not title-conveving. Vol. 
 4^ p. 754, June, 1912. 
 
 710. (Pa.) A check payable to John 
 Doe & Co. was indorsed "John Doe & Co., 
 James Roe, Treasurer, per G.," and it was 
 stamped "pay to the order of any bank, etc., 
 prior indorsements guaranteed," Ijy the City 
 Trust Company. Opinion: The indorsement 
 by the City Trust Company which is tlie cus- 
 tomary bank indorsement, was a sufficient 
 guaranty of the genuineness and validity of 
 the prior indorsement, and would protect the 
 paying bank in event the payee's indorsement 
 was unauthorized. Vol. 3, p. 468, Feb., 
 1911. 
 
 Indorsement by precise person intended 
 See 585, 591 ct scq 
 
 711. (Ark.) The drawer of a clieck pay- 
 able to the order of C. E. Spencer mailed the 
 same to the payee named, but intended to 
 pay J. W. Spencer. The check was indorsed 
 by C. K. Spencer, and negotiated to Jones, 
 who also indorsed it. Later the check was 
 paid. Jones has disappeared. The bank 
 questions its liability. Opinion: Payment by 
 the drawee on the indorsement of C. E. Spen- 
 cer was good and chargeable, as it was tlic 
 drawer's own fault tiiat the person intended 
 did not receive the money. Vol. 8, p. 416, 
 Nov., 1915. 
 
 712. (Miss.) Wiiore a check is made 
 payable to "John Smith, Tax Collector," 
 after Smith has ceased to hold that oflTice. and 
 is negotiated by indorsement of the payee to 
 a bank which guarantees prior indorsements 
 and receives payment. Opinion: The l)ank 
 receiving payment is a holder in due course 
 and not lial)le to refund, for the indorsement 
 is by the precise payee intended ; there is no 
 l)reach of the guaranty of genuineness, and 
 the suffix "tax collector" is descriptio pcrsonae 
 
 89
 
 713 
 
 DKiKST OF ].EGAL OPINIONS 
 
 and does not put the indorsee upon iiuiuiry. 
 Vol. y, p. 984, June, 1917. 
 
 Indorsement as pre-requisite of payment 
 See 201, 292, 079, «80 
 
 713. (Cal.) A chock lacking the in- 
 dorsement of ilie payee, but indorsed in blank 
 l)y the drawer, is not payable to bearer. It 
 is not safe for a hank to ])ay to tlie holder 
 without express instructions from the drawer. 
 Vol. 4, p. 430, Jan., 1912. 
 
 714. (111.) T) drew a check on the X 
 hank, payable to P or order, and P presented 
 the check direct to the X bank for payment. 
 P refused to indorse the check. Opinion: 
 The majority of courts would he likely to up- 
 hold the rule established by custom that the 
 X bank may refuse payment if the payee de- 
 clines to indorse. At common law, however, 
 the debtor could not require a receipt as a 
 condition of payment, and it has heen held in 
 some cases that a bank cannot require the 
 payee's indorsement where the payee presents 
 the check in person. The insertion in the 
 check of "order of P," instead of "P or 
 order," would not make any difference, as 
 there is no legal distinction between the two 
 phrases. Vol. 5, p. 521, Feb., 1913. 
 
 715. (Miss.) A check is indorsed by the 
 payee to J. J. Taylor, who cashed it without 
 indorsement with a merchant. The merchant 
 forwarded the item for credit to his account. 
 The drawee refused to pay or to give credit. 
 Opinion : The drawee is not obliged to pay or 
 give credit for a check Avhere a necessary in- 
 dorsement is lacking. Vol. 5, p. 23, July, 
 1912. See 669. 
 
 716. (Ore.) A made his check payable 
 to B for $50 and indorsed it in blank. B 
 presented it in person to the drawee without 
 indorsing it. Opinion: Some courts hold 
 the payee need not indorse when he presents 
 the check in person, while others uphold the 
 right of the bank to require the indorsement. 
 It is customary to require the payee's indorse- 
 ment as evidence that he has received pay- 
 ment, and this requirement is none the less 
 necessary because the drawer has indorsed 
 the check in blank. Vol. 7, p. 897, May, 
 1915. 
 
 717. (Pa.) A check was drawn payable 
 "to the order of John Jones," and signed 
 "S. A. Smith." It was not indorsed by the 
 payee, but was indorsed in blank by the 
 drawer "S. A. Smith." Opinion: The check 
 is not payable to bearer. Bank should refuse 
 
 payment until properly indorsed. Vol. 1, 
 \). 268, Jan., 1909. 
 
 "Prior indorsements guaranteed" 
 
 718. (Ala.) A gave to B his check which 
 bore the genuine indorsement in blank of B 
 and was deposited by C, a transferee, without 
 the latter's indorsement. The bank guar- 
 anteed tlie prior indorsements and collected 
 from the drawee. The payee obtained the 
 check from the maker by fraud. Opinion: 
 The guaranty of prior indorsements would 
 not make the collecting bank liable. The in- 
 dorsement does not warrant that the payee is 
 free from fraud. Vol. 4, p. 550, March, 
 1912. 
 
 719. (Kan.) A check payable to Mrs. 
 John Doc is indorsed without authority 
 "Mi-s. John Doe by John Doe," and the bank 
 which cashed the item indorsed "all prior in- 
 dorsements guaranteed." The drawee bank 
 paid the check and Mrs. Doe did not receive 
 the money. Opinion: "All prior indorse- 
 ments guaranteed" warrants genuineness of 
 the payee's indorsement, not only where the 
 name of the payee is forged, but also where 
 the payee's name is signed without authority 
 by another. Vol. 4, p. 679, May, 1912 . 
 
 720. (N. Y.) A check is presented pay- 
 able to A and bearing the indorsement of "A 
 by B." It is also indorsed by the presenting 
 bank "all prior indorsements guaranteed." 
 Opinion: The drawee is safe in paying the 
 check. "All prior indorsements guaranteed" 
 warrants the genuineness of payee's indorse- 
 ment, not only where the name of payee is 
 forged but also where payee's name is signed 
 without authority. Vol. 5, j). 174, Sept., 
 1912. 
 
 721. (Okla.) A cashier's check payable 
 to John Jones was indorsed "John Jones by 
 James White" and later indorsed by a bank 
 "all prior indorsements guaranteed." The 
 check was paid and it developed that John 
 Jones did not receive the money. Opinion: 
 The indorsement "all prior indorsements 
 guaranteed" covers the sufficiency of the in- 
 dorsement "John Jones bv James White." 
 Vol. 4, p. 432, Jan., 1912. 
 
 722. (Okla.) A drawee bank paid a 
 check upon which an indorsement was forged. 
 Two banks had subsequently indorsed with 
 the words "previous indorsements guaran- 
 teed." Opinion: The words "previous in- 
 dorsements guaranteed" are an express guar- 
 anty of the validity of prior indorsements 
 and the bank which pays a check bearing a 
 
 90
 
 INDOESER— INDOESEMEXT 
 
 730 
 
 prior forged indorsement may recover of the 
 guarantor. Vol. 3, p. 520, March, 1911. 
 
 723. (W. Va.) The stamp ''prior in- 
 dorsements guaranteed" guarantees the gen- 
 uineness of prior indorsements, and covers 
 imperfections and irregularities therein. Vol. 
 1, p. 407, May, 1909. 
 
 724. (Wis.) A certificate of deposit 
 payable to John Jones bore the indorsement 
 of "John Jones by Mary Jones." The col- 
 lecting bank indorsed it "all prior indorse- 
 ments guaranteed." Opinion: The payor 
 would be protected in paying, as the guaranty 
 by the collecting bank is suflicient to cover 
 the authority of Mary Jones to indorse. Vol. 
 G, p. 212, Sept., 1913. 
 
 Restrictive indorsement 
 
 See 574, 685 
 
 725 (Cal.) A four months' sight draft 
 after acceptance by the drawee is held by 
 the collecting bank of Y, to whom it was 
 transferred by an unqualified indorsement. 
 The drawee desires to discount the draft be- 
 fore maturity and the collecting bank seeks 
 advice as to the proper form of indorsement. 
 to be made by it to the drawee to protect it- 
 self against any fraudulent transfer to a 
 holder in due course. pinion.: The in- 
 dorsement "pay bank of X only" is a form 
 which would transfer title and restrict the 
 further negotiablitv of the instrument. Vol. 
 9, p. 984, June, 1917. 
 
 726. (N. J.) A check drawn to the order 
 of bearer is deposited in a bank, indorsed by 
 the depositor, and is indorsed by the bank 
 to its New York correspondent. The check 
 is lost and later is cashed by another bank. 
 Opinion: The bank whieli cashed the check 
 is protected. Where an instrument is payable 
 to bearer and is indorsed specially, it may. 
 nevertheless, be further negotiated by deliv- 
 ery; but the person indorsing specially is 
 liable as indorser to only such holders as make 
 title through his indorsement. Vol. 7, p. 
 690, March, 1915. See 681 et seq. Blank 
 indorsement followed by special indorsement. 
 
 727. (N. Y.) A note payable to the X 
 Manufacturing Company was indorsed by the 
 payee as follows: "Pay to the order of A for 
 collection on account of the X Atfg. Co., X 
 Treasurer." B, the indorsee of A, presented 
 the note to a bank for discount. Opinion: 
 The bank should not discount the note. The 
 indorsement is restrictive and conveys no 
 right to the holder to negotiate the instru- 
 ment. Vol. 7, p. 168, Sept., 1914. 
 
 728. (N. C.) John Smith drew a draft 
 on the Brown Manufacturing Company for 
 $40, payable to the X Bank. The draft was 
 cashed ffjp- Smith by tlie X Bank but only 
 upon the indorsement of John Jones, to whom 
 Smith was known. Afterwards Jones becom- 
 ing suspicious of Smith had him refund to 
 the bank. The draft was returned to Smith, 
 but tlirough error it contained uncancelled in- 
 dorsements of the X Bank "Pay to the order 
 of any bank, etc.," and also of John Jonc& 
 Smith succeeded in cashing the check at the 
 Y Bank, who regarded the indorsement of 
 the X Bank as a virtual certification. The 
 draft having been dishonored by the Brown 
 Manufacturing Company, the Y bank now 
 seeks to hold the X bank and John Jones 
 liable. Opinion: The indorsement placed 
 upon the draft by the payee, the X Bank, 
 was restrictive. It did not purport to pass 
 any title to the draft, but was simply an 
 authority to any bank to collect it. 'I'iie re- 
 strictive indorsement being first upon the 
 draft, Jones, whose name appeared under 
 that of Smith, could at most be regarded 
 only as a successive agent to collect with no 
 authority to negotiate. Vol. 1, p. 445, June, 
 1909. 
 
 729. (S. C.) A check payable to John 
 Doe was indorsed by the payee "indorsed only 
 for exchange of draft to the order of John 
 Doe." The check was cashed and forwarded 
 for collection, with the usual indorsement 
 guaranty. Opinion: The drawee bank was 
 safe in paying check so indorsed, es[)ecially 
 where the indorsement was guaranteed. The 
 indorsement is more likely a conditional 
 rather than a restrictive one. The signature 
 of the payee, John Doe, in the indorsement 
 is sufliciently made without further subscrib- 
 ing his name, ^'ol. 6, p. 821, June, 1914. 
 
 730. (Wyo.) The weight of authority 
 is to tlie ellVet that an indorsement "for de- 
 posit to the credit of" the depositor is re- 
 strictive. Cnder Section 37 of the Nego- 
 tiable Instruments Act "a restrictive indorse- 
 ment confers upon the indorsee the right (1) 
 to receive payment of the instrument, (2) to 
 bring any action tliereon that the indorser 
 could bring, (3) to transfor his right.« as 
 such indorsee, where the form of the instru- 
 ment authorizes him to do so." \ bank of 
 deposit should have no particular objection 
 to an indorsement "for deposit" except that 
 under the rules of certain Clearing Houses 
 such indorsement^! are declared to be restric- 
 tive and tlie instrument not payable through 
 
 91
 
 731 
 
 DIGEST OF LEGAL OPINIONS 
 
 the Clearing House unless prior indorsements 
 are guaranteed. Vol. 8, p. 325, Oct., 1915. 
 
 Rubber stamp 
 See 523 
 
 731. (Cal.) A check payahle to John 
 Doe is indorsed l)y a ru])hcr stamp as follows: 
 "For deposit with the Blank National Bank 
 of Blank to the credit of John Doe." Opin- 
 ion: The rubber stamp indorsement is valid 
 except in localities where Clearing House 
 rules forbid the form of indorsement "for 
 deposit." For all practical purposes the in- 
 dorsement *'for deposit" by a rubber stamp is 
 as good a receipt to the drawer as a hand 
 written indorsement. Vol. 3, p. 81, Aug., 
 1910. 
 
 732. (N. Y.) A check drawn on a na- 
 tional bank was indorsed by rubber stamp in 
 blank by the payee and deposited in his bank, 
 which forwarded it to the national bank with 
 the usual stamp guaranteeing prior indorse- 
 ments. The national bank returned the 
 check with the following printed slip at- 
 tached: "This check is returned for indorse- 
 ment of the payee. A plain stamp indorse- 
 ment without 'For Deposit,' or 'For Credit/ 
 is no indorsement whatever. This bank will 
 refuse payment on all checks bearing this 
 kind of indorsement whether 'guaranteed' or 
 not.'* Opinion: A rubber stamp indorse- 
 ment in blank of the payee's name to a check 
 is legal and where the check is deposited in 
 tlie payee's bank, the drawee bank is protected 
 by such guaranty in making payment equally 
 as if the words "for deposit" or "for credit" 
 are prefixed to the indorsement. Of course 
 a drawee bank is not under obligation to 
 honor a check presented by an indorsee unless 
 properly indorsed by the payee, but if the 
 payee imprints or authorizes the imprint of 
 his indorsement by rubber stamp, the courts 
 have held such indorsement to be legal. Vol. 
 11, p. 331, Dec, 1918. 
 
 733. (N. Y.) A note made payable by 
 John Jones to John Brown, bearing the 
 rubber stamp indorsement of the payee's 
 name was discounted at a bank and the pro- 
 ceeds placed to the credit of Brown's account. 
 The proceeds were afterwards embezzled by a 
 party holding a power to sign checks against 
 such account. Brown claimed that the in- 
 dorsement was unauthorized and unratified. 
 Opinion: Indorsement of name of payee of 
 note with rubber stamp conveys good title if 
 placed on note by one having authority and 
 with intent to indorse, but if indorsement is 
 
 unauthorized and not ratified no title passes. 
 Vol. 4, p. 753, June, 1912. 
 
 734. (Pa.) An indorsement by a rubber 
 stamp is legal, but in some cases it would be 
 more difficult to prove its authenticity than if 
 handwritten. Vol. 5, p. 374, Dec., 1912. 
 
 735. (Wis.) A bank has several custom- 
 ers who cash payroll checks and indorse them 
 by rubber stamp. The bank receiving such 
 checks asks if it could hold the customer liable 
 if checks were not good, and what would be 
 its status if the customer received cash but 
 later claimed that he did not get the money 
 on the ground that the checks had been stolen 
 and the stamp placed thereon without his au- 
 thority? Opinion: An indorsement by a 
 rubber stamp is valid when made by the payee 
 or indorsee or by one having authority from 
 him, and may be relied upon by a bank when 
 the amount of the instrument is credited to 
 the account of the indorser. But where cash, 
 instead of credit to account, is requested upon 
 an instrument so indorsed by a customer, the 
 bank, if afterwards confronted with the claim 
 that the instrument was stolen from the in- 
 dorser, the stamp placed thereon without his 
 authority and that- he had not received the 
 amount, would be at a disadvantage in dis- 
 proving such claim. The safer practice, 
 whether the indorsement of a customer is 
 handwritten or by rubber stamp, is to place 
 the amount to his credit and require his own 
 check in withdrawal. Vol. 10, p. 659, March, 
 1918. 
 
 736. (Wis.) A corporation discounted 
 a trade note, indorsing the same with its 
 rubber stamp without the written signature 
 of an authorized official. Opinion: The in- 
 dorsement is valid and effectual to transfer 
 title, but good banking practice requires in 
 addition the written signature of an author- 
 ized official, as better evidence of authenticity. 
 Vol. 3, p. 467, Feb., 1911. 
 
 Indorsement does not warrant genuine- 
 ness of signature 
 
 737. (N. Y.) A bank is the drawee of 
 a draft drawn by the executor of the estate 
 of its deceased depositor for the balance to the 
 credit of his account. The draft is accom- 
 panied by a certified copy of letters testament- 
 ary showing right of the executor to with- 
 draw, as well as the necessary waiver, but the 
 executor himself has never filed his signature, 
 so that the bank has no means of determining 
 whether his signature is genuine or not. The 
 drawee asks for a guaranty of genuineness of 
 
 92
 
 INDORSEI^-INDORSEMENT 
 
 r44 
 
 this signature before making payment, but 
 the bank to whom the draft is made payable 
 contends that such guaranty is unnecessary, 
 as its indorsement guarantees the genuineness 
 of the instrument in every respect, including 
 the maker's signature. Opinion: An in- 
 dorsement of a check signed by an executor 
 is not a warranty to the drawee of the gen- 
 uineness of the drawer's signature, but where 
 the indorsing bank is the payee of the check, 
 and receives payment thereof from the 
 drawee, it would be liable to refund, should 
 the drawer's signature be non-genuine, be- 
 cause of having received money to which it 
 was not entitled, although it made no express 
 warranty of genuineness, and in such case the 
 rule holding the drawee bound to know the 
 drawer's signature and precluding recovery 
 from a bona fide holder would not apply. 
 Vol. 11, p'. 673, June, 1919. See 556, 560, 
 612. 
 
 "Without recourse" 
 
 738. (Kan.) A gave his note for $5,000 
 to a cattle company, secured by a chattel 
 mortgage on certain cattle. The cattle com- 
 pany indorsed the note "without recourse" 
 and sold the note and mortgage to a bank. 
 The note and the mortgage proved fraudu- 
 lent, there being no such cattle as described in 
 the mortgage. Opinion: The cattle company 
 is liable to the bank, as tlierc was a breach of 
 implied warranty of the validity of the tiling 
 sold. Vol. 9, p. 47, July, 1916. 
 
 739. (Mich.) An indorsement "without 
 recourse" does not relieve the indorscr from 
 responsibility in case the note is a forgery. 
 By this indorsement, the indorser warrants 
 that the instrument is genuine and in all re- 
 spects what it purports to be. Vol. 4, p. 434, 
 Jan., 1912. 
 
 740. (Okla.) B gave his note to A, 
 which A indorsed to a bank "without re- 
 course," receiving credit in liis account. B 
 refused to pay the note at maturity, claiming 
 that A obtained the note through fraud. 
 Opinion: The bank can enforce payment from 
 B, provided the proceeds of the note have been 
 checked out before tlie notice of fraud. The 
 indorsement "without recourse" does not 
 affect the bank's status as a holder in due 
 course. Vol. 5, p. 830, June, 1913. 
 
 741. (Pa.) A gave his note to B, who 
 indorsed it over to C without recourse. Pay- 
 
 ment was refused by A because B failed to 
 give value for the note. Opinion: A is liable 
 to C if the latter is a holder in due course, and 
 the mere fact that B indorsed without re- 
 course does not constitute notice of B's defec- 
 tive title. Vol. 2, p. 230, Dec, 1909. 
 
 742. (Wis.) Where a note is indorsed 
 in blank by the payee with the words "with- 
 out recourse" written over his signature, and 
 is later indorsed by a second indorser, such 
 words qualify the payee's indorsement only, 
 and do not apply to the second indorser, who 
 failed to insert the words. Vol. 4, p. 621, 
 April, 1912. 
 
 Indorsement by person of same name as 
 
 payee 
 
 See 585 et scq 
 
 743. (N. C.) Two checks were issued 
 and fell into the hands of a person of the 
 same name as the payee, but not the real 
 payee. One of these checks was paid by the 
 drawee bank. Payment was stopped upon 
 the other check, but not before tlie same had 
 been cashed by a bank for the purported payee 
 upon tlie identification of a responsible per- 
 son, who, liowever, did not indorse the check. 
 Who stands the loss? Opinion: Where a 
 bank pays a clieck upon the indorsement of a 
 person of the same name, but not tlie true 
 payee, the bank cannot charge the amount to 
 the drawer's account, unless the latter is neg- 
 ligent, for the indorsement of the purjiorted 
 payee is a forgery and confers no authority 
 on the bank to make payment. The payor 
 bank, however, has a right of action against 
 the person receiving payment to recover the 
 money as paid by mistake. A bank purchas- 
 ing a clieck upon which the payee's indor.se- 
 ment is forged as al)ovo indicated ac<iuiro.'^ no 
 enforceable rights;. Vol. 10, p. 658, March, 
 1918. 
 
 744. (S. C.) The drawer of a check, 
 who owed "(tcorge P. Bent," by mistake drew 
 and mailed his check to "George A. Bent." 
 The latter received and cashed the check. 
 Opinion: The general rule is that indorse- 
 ment by a person of the same name, or nearly 
 the same name, is a forgery and that the de- 
 positor is not liable for payment. In this 
 case, which is an exception to the rule, the 
 maker is loser, as payment was made by the 
 bank as a result of liis negligence. Vol. 4, 
 p. 303, Nov., 1911. 
 
 93
 
 745 
 
 INTEREST AND USURY 
 
 Attorney's fee as cover for usury 
 
 745. (Okla.) A national bank loaned B 
 $10U for ninety days and charged $0 interest, 
 making the note $10G. The note also pro- 
 vided for the payment of an attorney's fee of 
 $15 and ten per cent, additional. Opinion: 
 Id this case usurious interest was charged but 
 not paid. Under the National Bank Act the 
 entire interest is forfeited and the principal 
 alone is recoverable. The usurious element 
 does not vitiate the entire contract, but the 
 provision for the attorney's fee might be re- 
 garded as excessive and as a cover for usury, 
 so that such amount would be non-recover- 
 able. Vol. 5, p. 755, May, 1913. 
 
 Blank space for interest left in note 
 
 746. (Pa.) A promissory note is drawn 
 payable after date "with interest at the rate 
 of .... per cent, per annum until paid." 
 Opinion: The note containing a blank space 
 for the statement of the rate draws legal in- 
 terest from date. But if a pen line is drawn 
 through the blank after the words "at the 
 rate of," this would indicate an intentional 
 erasure of the entire interest clause. Vol. 5, 
 p. 240, Oct., 1912. 
 
 Calculation of interest 
 
 747. (Iowa.) The custom of banks to 
 compute interest on the basis of 30 days to a 
 month is generally held valid by the courts 
 and in some cases sanctioned by statute, but 
 in a few states, including Iowa, such method 
 is held illegal. Vol. 8, p. 612, Jan., 1916. 
 
 748. (Okla.) A note in the sum of 
 $100,000, dated July 10, 1915, was executed 
 payable to B "four months" after date with 
 interest at the rate of eight per cent, per 
 annum. B insisted that the interest be com- 
 puted and paid for the actual number of days 
 from the date of the note to maturity, to wit, 
 123 days, instead of on the basis of 4/12 of a 
 year. Opinion: The strict legal rule is to 
 calculate interest according to the actual 
 number of days. In some states (not in Ok- 
 lahoma) the custom to calculate interest on 
 the monthly instead of daily basis has been 
 legalized bv statutes. Vol. 9, p. 144, Aug., 
 1916. 
 
 Collection annually and at maturity 
 
 749. (Kan.) A three year note contains 
 a provision "with interest from date at the 
 
 rate of six per cent, per annum." Opinion: 
 The interest is not collectible annually, as no 
 part of the interest is due until maturity o£ 
 the principal. The words "payable annual- 
 ly" should be added to make the interest col- 
 lectible annually. Vol. 6, p. 683, April, 1914. 
 
 750. (Kan.) A five year note provides 
 "with interest at the rate of seven per cent, 
 per annum from date until paid." Opinion: 
 Interest is not collectible annually, as no part 
 of the interest is due until maturitv of the 
 principal. Vol. 2, p. 107, Sept., 1909. 
 
 751. (Okla.) A three years' note con- 
 tains a provision "with interest at the rate 
 of eight per cent, per annum from date until 
 paid." It further provides "interest to be- 
 come as principal when due and bear the same 
 rate of interest." Opinion: The provision 
 does not call for interest payable annually 
 but only at maturity of principal and there- 
 fore there can be no compounding of unpaid 
 interest. A^ol. 4, p. 490, Feb., 1912. 
 
 752. (Ore.) A mortgage note was made 
 payable ten years after date "with interest 
 at the rate of 5 per cent, per annum until 
 paid." The mortgage securing the note con- 
 tains a copy of the note and provides that 
 payment of the note is made in accordance 
 with its terms. The makers of the note re- 
 fused to pay the interest annually. Opinion: 
 The note does not call for interest payable 
 annually but only at maturity of the princi- 
 pal. If the mortgage provided that interest 
 should be payable annually this would prob- 
 ablv govern the provisions of the note. Vol. 
 7, p. 167, Sept., 1914. 
 
 Compound interest 
 
 753. (Kan.) A note is payable three 
 years after date with interest at the highest 
 legal rate allowed in Kansas, namely, 10 per 
 cent., and contains a provision "Interest pay- 
 able annually and if not paid when due to 
 bear the same rate of interest as the princi- 
 pal." The holder questions the validity of 
 the provision. Opinion: (1) Some courts, 
 for example in Illinois, hold such a provision 
 usurious; (2) the majority hold such pro- 
 vision invalid and unenforceable as contrary 
 to public policy; (3) while a few courts (Ar- 
 kansas, Georgia, Mississippi, Oklahoma, 
 South Carolina and Washington) hold such 
 provision valid and enforceable. The ques- 
 tion has not yet been decided in Kansas. An 
 agreement made after interest is due to pay 
 
 94
 
 INTEREST AND USURY 
 
 r62 
 
 interest thereon is valid. If a note such as 
 above provided in any case for sucli a rate of 
 interest that the compounding thereof down 
 to the time of maturity of the principal would 
 not exceed the simple interest at the highest 
 legal rate, the stipulation would in any event 
 probably be valid. Vol. 6, p. 682, April, 
 1914. 
 
 754. (Miss.) Note bearing highest rate 
 of interest with provision that unpaid over- 
 due interest shall bear interest not usurious 
 in Mississippi. Vol. 6, p. 683, April, 1914. 
 
 755. (S. Dak.) A note running for a num- 
 ber of years contains a provision "with in- 
 terest payable annually at the rate of" etc., 
 but contains no provision that upon the de- 
 fault in payment of any installment of inter- 
 est, such interest shall itself bear interest. 
 Opinion: It has been held in Missouri, Wash- 
 ington and West A''irginia, that without spe- 
 cial agreement interest cannot be collected 
 upon unpaid interest. (Kentucky and Texas 
 contra.) The point has not been decided in 
 South Dakota, but the statute providing "that 
 interest is payable on all moneys at the rate 
 of seven per cent, per annum after they be- 
 come due on any instrument of writing" may 
 be construed to include interest on unpaid in- 
 terest. Vol. 3, p. 403, Jan., 1910. 
 
 Discount greater than legal rate 
 
 756. (N. J.) Where a national bank 
 buys a note from a broker acting directly for 
 the maker at a discount of eight per cent., 
 the excessive discount of the note for the 
 maker is usurious, but if the note has legal 
 inception and is acquired from an indorser 
 without recourse, the question of usury is 
 doubtful. Where the note is discounted at 
 an excessive rate with recourse on the in- 
 dorser, the transaction is usurious as to the 
 indorser but recoverable in full from the 
 maker. Authorities on subject collected in 
 Vol. 8, p. 514, Dec., 1915. 
 
 757. (Tenn.) A makes his note to B for 
 value, and B indorses it to C without recourse 
 at a discount greater tlian the legal rate of 
 interest. Opinion: The rule in Tennessee is 
 that the note is not usurious in its inception 
 and that an indorser, who has transferred a 
 note at a discount greater than legal interc-t 
 and has paid the same to the holder, has no 
 right of recovery of the excess over the legal 
 interest. There are different views held by 
 courts as to the usurious nature of the trans- 
 action. Vol. 8, p. 1104, June, 1916. 
 
 Legal rate collectible after maturity 
 
 758. (Pa.) A note was issued in 1906 
 for $1,000 payable one year after date and 
 bearing four per cent, interest. Interest was 
 regularly paid at the rate of four per cent, 
 until 1910. Opinion: The legal rate of in- 
 terest (six per cent, in Pennsylvania) governs 
 after maturity, whether the rate fixed by con- 
 tract be greater or less than the legal rate. 
 The holder of the note should claim the extra 
 two per cent, not paid by the maker after 
 maturity, unless he has waived his right to 
 collect. ' Vol. 8, p. 612, Jan., 1916. 
 
 759. (Ohio.) Where a demand note in 
 Ohio provides for interest at eight per cent, 
 ''payable semi-annually after maturity," such 
 semi-annual interest is collectible running 
 from date. Where the note is drawn for 
 three months with eight per cent, interest 
 payable semi-annually "after date," it ia 
 doubtful if more than the legal rate (six per 
 cent, in Ohio) is collectible after maturity, 
 for where the contract does not fix the rate 
 after maturity, the law fixes the legal rate. 
 If the interest clause were changed to read : 
 "with interest at the rate of eight per cent. 
 per annum, payable semi-annually from date 
 until paid," the eight per cent, would be col- 
 lectible throughout. Vol. 7, p. 895, Mav. 
 1915. 
 
 Legal rate on loans 
 
 s.i" St;: 
 
 760. (Tenn.) A loan was originally 
 made at the legal rate of six per cent. After 
 maturity the lender increased the rate to 
 eight per cent., which was received for sub- 
 sequent indulgence and forbearance of the 
 debt. Opinion: The taking of the eight per 
 cent, was usurious under the law of Ten- 
 nessee. Vol. 7, p. 780, April, 1915. 
 
 761. (N. C.) \ bank loaned money to 
 its depositor at six per cent., the maximum 
 rate of interest, on condition that the borrow- 
 er keej) a stated amount on deposit during tlie 
 period of the loan. Opinion: The loan ia 
 usurious. The borrower would be ]»aying in- 
 terest on the full amount but would only be 
 given the use of a portion of that amount. 
 Vol. 5. p. 25. July, 1912. 
 
 Discount at meiximum legal rate 
 See 867 
 
 762. (Ark.) A note for $100 having ten 
 months to run was discounted t)y a bank by 
 taking $10, — representing 10 per cent., from
 
 7G3 
 
 DICJEST OF LEGAL OPINIONS 
 
 its face valiio. Tlie Arkansas statutes with 
 respect to usury provide that all contracts for 
 greater rate of interest than 10 per cent. ])er 
 annum shall he void as to principal and in- 
 terest, and further that all notes whereupon 
 there shall be reserved any greater sum than 
 is prescribed shall be void. Is the note in 
 question usurious? Opinion,: It has been 
 held in Arkansas that the taking of the high- 
 est legal rate of interest in advance on a ne- 
 gotiable note payable twelve months after 
 date does not constitute usury. In the case 
 under consideration interest was collected in 
 advance for one year, whereas the note actual- 
 ly matured in ten months. This plainly 
 amounts to usury. Vol. 9, p. 747, March, 
 1917. 
 
 763. (Fla.) In Florida and Georgia de- 
 duction of interest in advance at highest legal 
 rate is usurious but in Texas, North Carolina, 
 North Dakota and some other jurisdictions, 
 such deduction is permissible. Vol. 10, p. 
 123, Aug., 1917. 
 
 764. (Miss.) While, generally, a bank 
 may reserve interest in advance at the highest 
 legal rate, in Mississippi, neither a national 
 nor a state bank can collect such discount 
 without incurring the penalty of usury. Vol. 
 5, p. 591, March, 1913. 
 
 765. (Okla.) In Oklahoma the maxi- 
 mum rate of interest, not exceeding one year's 
 amount, may be deducted in advance without 
 incurring liability on the part of the lender 
 for usury. Vol. 9, p. 585, Jan., 1917. 
 
 766. (Tex.) Under the Texas statute 
 regarding the legal rate of interest Avhich pro- 
 vides that "the parties to any written contract 
 may agree to and stipulate for any rate of 
 interest not exceeding ten per cent, per an- 
 num on the amount of the contract," it is not 
 usury to deduct interest in advance at the 
 highest legal rate of ten per cent. Vol. 9, p. 
 982, June, 1917. 
 
 Negotiability affected by interest clause 
 
 767. (Kan.) A note was drawn payable 
 one year from date with ten per cent, inter- 
 est, and contained provisions that if the in- 
 terest was not paid annually it was "to be- 
 come as principal and draw the same rate of 
 interest" and to bear "only six per cent, in- 
 terest if paid when due." Opinion: The note 
 is negotiable under the decisions in Kansas. 
 Vol. 5, p. 524, Feb., 1913. 
 
 768. (Kan.) A note, providing for in- 
 terest from date until paid, contains the fur- 
 
 ther provision "if paid when due no interest 
 will be charged." Opinion: In Kansas a note 
 with such ])rovision is negotiable. \\\ other 
 states some courts hold it ncgotialde and 
 some non-negotiable. Vol. 3, p. 81, Aug., 
 1910. 
 
 769. (Okla.) A note contains a provi- 
 sion "if the interest be not paid annually 
 when due, the same to be added to the prin- 
 cipal and draw the same rate of interest." 
 The question was raised as to the negotia- 
 bility of the note. Opinion that such provi- 
 sion does not destroy negotiability. Vol. 5, 
 p. 174, Sept., 1912. 
 
 Parol evidence to prove usury 
 
 770. (Okla.) A made his note payable 
 to a bank for $193 due in ten months, with 
 interest from maturity at ten per cent. The 
 bank collected the note and thereafter A sued 
 the bank for usurious interest to the amount 
 of double the interest paid at time of loan. 
 A introduced note as his material allegation 
 and bank objected to any other parol evidence 
 being introduced to alter terms of note. Opin- 
 ion: Where an action is brought for usurious 
 interest and the note, pleaded as the material 
 allegation in support of the usury, does not 
 itself indicate that the transaction was usur- 
 ious, parol evidence would be admissible to 
 prove the usury. Vol. 5, p. 661, April, 1913. 
 
 Partial payment applied to reduce interest 
 
 771. (111.) A gave B his note for $435.50 
 for two years, dated March 2, 1914, inter- 
 est at 5 per cent., payable semi-annually. On 
 March 8, 1915, A made his first payment of 
 $20, and B indorsed payment on the note as 
 follows : "Received on the within note $20." 
 B left the note with a bank for collection, 
 with no explanation regarding the indorse- 
 ment. Opinion: The partial payment of $20 
 should be applied first to the reduction of in- 
 terest before applying the surplus, if any, 
 upon the principal. Compound interest can- 
 not be charged unless contracted for. Vol. 
 8, p. 1103, June, 1916. 
 
 Payment of interest in advance 
 
 772. (Fla.) Where a note is executed to 
 bank, payable on demand with interest, and 
 at the time of execution the maker pays three 
 months' advance interest which the bank in- 
 dorses upon the note, such transaction is 
 prima facie evidence of an agreement to ex- 
 tend the time of payment during the period 
 for which the interest is paid, which will 
 
 96
 
 INTEEEST AND USURY 
 
 781 
 
 prevent the bank, unless it can prove a con- 
 trary agreement, from enforcing payment 
 before the end of the extended period. Note 
 payable at bank can be charged to maker's 
 account at maturity without notification or 
 his consent and bank owning note has right 
 of set off at maturity. Vol. 10, p. 465, Dec, 
 1917. 
 
 773. (N. J.) The maker of a demand note 
 pays interest for three months in advance to 
 the bank holding the note. The bank wishes to 
 enforce payment on demand before tlio date 
 to Avhicli the interest is paid. Opinion : Such 
 payment does not of itself constitute an a.^rree- 
 ment extending the time of payment of the 
 principal for three months. In some states 
 such payment is, and in others is not, prima 
 facie evidence of agreement to extend, but it 
 is in no case conclusive evidence. Vol. 5, p. 
 311, Nov., 1912. 
 
 Payment of principal before maturity 
 
 774. (111.) A promises to pay B $6,000 
 one year after date with interest at five per 
 cent. ; in other words, a total of $G,300. Six 
 months before maturity A paid B $3,000 by 
 consent of both parties, nothing being said 
 as to rebate of interest, and at maturity in 
 final settlement B demands the balance and 
 full interest, $3,300, while A claims that there 
 should be deducted six months' unearned in- 
 terest on $3,000, or $75, and all that he owes 
 is $3,225. Opinion: Although the precise 
 question has never been decided it is probable 
 that if B accepted partial payment of tlie 
 principal in advance, he impliedly forfeited 
 his right to future interest upon such prepaid 
 amount. Vol. 7, p. 101, Aug., 1914. 
 
 775. (Miss.) It is not usury to receive 
 payment l)efore maturity of the full amount 
 due at maturity u])on note discounted at. or 
 carrying, highest legal rate of interest. Vol. 
 6, p. 681, April, 1914. 
 
 776. (N. C.) A person carries a note of 
 $5,000 with a bank, {layable in 5 years. In- 
 terest at 6 per cent, is payal)le in advance for 
 six months at a time, being due Decemlier 
 3rd and June 3rd of each year. The maker 
 with the bank's consent paid the full amount 
 of the note in the middle of March after 
 having paid up the interest to June 3. 
 The bank allows rebate of 3 per cent., but the 
 maker demands the full 6 per cent, for the 
 unexpired term. Opinion: Wliere a loan, 
 upon Avhich interest has been paid in ailvance, 
 is paid by the del)tor to the creditor before 
 maturity, the latter is not liable for rel)ate of 
 
 the unearned interest, in the absence of an 
 agreement to make such rebate, and the fact 
 that he voluntarily rebates part, does not 
 make him liable for the remainder. A pre- 
 payment of the principal by the debtor, with 
 the consent of the creditor, would be deemed 
 a voluntary relinquishment of the interest for 
 the unexpired period. Vol. 11, p. 607, May, 
 1919. 
 
 Penalty for usury 
 See 74.5 
 
 777. (Okla.) The usury laws of Okla- 
 homa apply equally to individuals and to 
 firms and corporations, but in the case of the 
 national banks, the penalty for usury is pro- 
 vided for in the national and not in the stiite 
 law. Vol. 6, p. 574, Feb., 19 11. 
 
 778. (Okla.) The provisions of the pro- 
 posed Oklahoma usury law (1 ) making usury 
 a misdemeanor, (2) making it a misdemean- 
 or for the original holder to sell or transfer 
 a usurious instrument, (3) prohibiting the 
 filing of a mortgage or other security given 
 for a usurious loan, and (4) prohibiting suit 
 in court upon a usurious contract, will not, if 
 enacted, be applicable to national banks. 
 Vol. 6, p. 30, July, 1913. 
 
 Rate on loans outside of state 
 
 779. (Mo.) The National Bank Act allows 
 bank to charge interest (1) at the rate al- 
 lowed by the laws of the state wliere a bank 
 is located and no more, (2) except wliere a 
 higher rate is charged by state banks of issue 
 they can charge such higher rate, and (3) 
 where no rate is fixed by the state law, not 
 exceeding seven per cent. This state rate 
 applies even though money is loaned to bor- 
 rowers outside the state where a liigiier rate 
 is allowed. Vol. 9, p. 45, July, 1916. 
 
 780. (N. J.) A note drawn and payable 
 in Canada for $106. S4 is presented to a bank 
 in New Jersey. The note e(Uitains a .state- 
 ment of the consideration for which it was 
 given, as follows: (Being $105.00 j)]us 7 per 
 cent, per annum). The New Jersey bank 
 raises the question of invalidity by reaj^on of 
 usury. Opinion: The note is not invalid by 
 reason of (be statement. In Canada the 
 legal rate of interest is 5 per cent., l)ut banks 
 may stij»ula(e for and take not exceeding 7 
 per cent. Vol. 7, p. 104, Aug., 1914. 
 
 781. (N. Y.) A note drawn in New 
 York payable in another state, with interest 
 but without specifying the rate, carries inter- 
 est at the loijal rale of the state where it is 
 payable. Vol. 9, p. 907. May, 1917. 
 
 97
 
 782 
 
 DIGEST OF LEGAL OPINIONS 
 
 782. (N. C.) The state rate of interest 
 applies, even though money is loaned to hor- 
 rowers outside the state where the higlier 
 rate is aUowed. A national hank in North 
 Carolina where the rate is (5 per cent, would 
 be subject to tlie penalties for usury where it 
 loaned funds to South Carolina parties at H 
 per cent., the legal rate in that state, even 
 though the note is made payable in South 
 Carolina and suit was brought thereon in the 
 South Carolina courts. Vol. 10, p. 854, 
 June, 1018. 
 
 Minimum charge of $1 for small loans 
 
 783. (Mass.) A national bank in Massa- 
 chusetts follows a custom of making a min- 
 imum charge of $1 to cover both interest and 
 service in small loans. The bank seeks to 
 avoid the liability for usury because the comp- 
 troller contended that the whole charge 
 should be counted as interest and that so 
 counted it would constitute a usurious charge 
 in the case of small loans. Opinion: Under 
 the Massachusetts statute, which allows 
 parties to contract for any rate of interest or 
 discount, a minimum charge of $1 deducted 
 by a national bank as an interest and service 
 charge upon a small loan is lawful, and with- 
 in the permission granted by the National 
 Bank Act to charge and receive interest at the 
 rate allowed by the laws of the state. Where 
 a national bank in Massachusetts makes a 
 small loan and deducts $1 as an interest and 
 service charge by oral agreement with the bor- 
 rower, the conclusion seems warranted that 
 such rate of interest and charge is lawful 
 under the law of Massachusetts, although the 
 amount deducted exceeds 6 per cent, interest 
 on the amount of the loan, and that such de- 
 duction is within the permission granted by 
 
 the National Bank Act that a national bank 
 may deduct interest at the rate allowed by the 
 laws of tiie state. Vol. 9, p. 749, March, 
 1917. 
 
 Slight excess interest 
 
 784. (Va.) A bank charged $7.67 in- 
 terest on a note for $500, payable in three 
 months. At this rate three renewals of the 
 note would produce a year's income from in- 
 terest of $30.42, whereas the straight interest 
 for one year would be $30. Opinion: The 
 slight excess interest is not usurious. Where, 
 for convenience of calculation, interest is 
 taken slightly in excess of the legal rate, the 
 transaction is not usurious. Taking the in- 
 terest of a note in advance by way of discount 
 is not usurious. Vol. 7, p. 689, March, 191.5. 
 
 Usury pleaded as a defense 
 
 785. (Okla.) A national bank loaned A 
 $100, taking his note for $106 signed by B as 
 surety. The loan, being for a period less 
 than one year, was usurious, and in a suit 
 against B to collect the note, B pleaded usury. 
 Opinion: The surety may defend on the 
 ground of usury to the same extent as the 
 principal debtor. If the defense was success- 
 ful, the bank could recover the principal sum 
 loaned, but no interest. A'ol. 6, p. 503, Jan., 
 1914. 
 
 786. (Va.) Lender the laws of Tennessee 
 usurious interest paid on a loan is first ap- 
 plied to the payment of the principal and 
 legal interest, and until such debt is paid, the 
 claim for usury does not arise, and the action 
 is barred in two years. There is no statute 
 in Tennessee forbidding a corporation from 
 pleading usury. Vol. 6, p. 820, June, 1914. 
 
 LEGAL TENDER 
 
 Deposit in gold coin payable in legal 
 tender 
 
 787. (Vt.) A man deposited $1,000 gold 
 in his bank and at the end of the year wishes 
 to withdraw this amount and demands gold 
 from the bank. Opinion: A bank which re- 
 ceives gold coin as a general deposit is not 
 obliged to pay gold on demand of depositor, 
 but only legal tender, but if gold was placed 
 with the bank as a special deposit, the identi- 
 cal thing must be returned. Vol. 10, p. 125, 
 Aug., 1917. 
 
 Legal tender qualities of money 
 
 788. (Colo.) Gold coins and standard 
 silver dollars of the United States are legal 
 tender at their nominal value ; subsidiary 
 silver coins smaller than one dollar are legal 
 tender up to ten dollars ; minor coins (nickel 
 and copper) are legal tender up to twenty-five 
 cents; United States notes, demand treasury 
 notes and interest bearing treasurj* notes are 
 legal tender in pa}Tnent for all debts public 
 and private except for duties on imports and 
 interest on the public debt ; treasury notes are 
 legal tender in payment of all debts public 
 
 98
 
 LIBEL AND SLANDER 
 
 [796 
 
 and private and are receivable for customs, 
 taxes and all public dues ; gold and silver cer- 
 tificates, national bank and Federal reserve 
 notes are not legal tender, but gold and silver 
 certificates are receivable for all public dues; 
 national bank notes are receivable for all 
 public dues except duties on imports ; federal 
 reserve notes are receivable by national and 
 member banks and Federal reserve banks and 
 for all taxes, customs and other public dues. 
 For detailed statement showing exceptions to 
 above see Vol. 10, p. 125, Aug., 1917. 
 
 Legal tender substitute for gold coin 
 
 789. (Cal.) A bank desires to eliminate 
 from all notes payable to it the words "Prin- 
 cipal and interest payable in gold coin of the 
 United States," and substitute the words 
 "Principal and interest payable in lawful 
 money of the United States." Opinion: A 
 note promising to pay so many dollars is pay- 
 able in lawful money, i. e., legal tender, and 
 there is no necessity for a provision specifi- 
 cally making it so payable. A note payable 
 
 in '"'gold coin of the United States" is speci- 
 fically payable and enforceable in that medi- 
 um. Vol. 11, p. 95, Aug., 1918. 
 
 790. (Minn.) The customer of a bank 
 holds a bond and mortgage which pro\ides 
 for payment at maturity in gold coin. At 
 maturity he insists upon specific performance 
 of the contract, although gold is unobtainable 
 at the banks. 0[yinion: Where a note and 
 mortgage provide for payment in gold coin, 
 the creditor is entitled to payment, speci- 
 fically in gold, and can recover and enforce 
 judgment payable specifically in that medium. 
 Should it become physically impossible to ob- 
 tain gold, the promisor would ))e liable in 
 damages for non-performance but it is dit!l- 
 cult to see how badly damaged he would be, 
 since paper legal tender is on a par with goM. 
 Vol. 11, p. 277, Nov., 1918. 
 
 Standard silver dollars 
 
 791. (S. Dak.) Standard silver dollars are 
 legal tender for any amount. Vul. 4, p. 687, 
 May, 1912. 
 
 LIBEL AND SLANDER 
 
 XoTE: A statute recommended by the American 
 Bankers Association which punishes the wilful 
 and nialieious circuhition of statements, written 
 or oral, deio^ratory to banking institutions, lias 
 been passed in tlie foUowinij states: Arkansas, 
 California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Kan- 
 sas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Miehi;j;an, 
 Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New 
 York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, 
 Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Wasiiington, West 
 Virginia, Wyoming. 
 
 Derogatory statements affecting banks 
 
 792. (N. Y.) The editor of a newspaper 
 wilfully pulilished a statement concerning two 
 banks that "the deposits of the First Xational 
 are falling off and of the Citizens are slowly 
 increasing," such statement l)eing contrary to 
 fact. Opinion: To establish the editor's 
 criminal liability for libel, the test is, was the 
 publication not only untrue but malicious and 
 did such publication have a tendency to in- 
 jure the bank in its l)usiness? It is doubtful 
 if the editor can be convicted. Vol. 5, p. 97, 
 Aug. 191-?. 
 
 793. (Pa.) A hotel num nuule a public 
 utterance of the derogatory and untrue state- 
 ment that a certain national bank "has 
 closed," thereby causing lo-:s to the bank. 
 Opinion: The person can be prosecuted crim- 
 inally under the "derogatory statement" act, 
 in force in Pennsylvania. The bank can also 
 
 maintain an action for slander. For the De- 
 rogatory Statement Act advocated by the 
 American Bankers Association see Vol. 6, p. 
 i:52, Dec, 1913. 
 
 794. (Pa.) A rival banker made a de- 
 rogatory and untrue statement to the effect 
 that a certain national bank was not safe and 
 would "bust" and advised his friend to with- 
 draw his money therefrom. Opinion: The 
 making of the derogatory statement would 
 render the banker punishal)le under the stat- 
 ute enacted in Pennsylvania in 1909, and also 
 liable in a civil action for slander. Vol. 5. p. 
 97, Aug., 1912. 
 
 795. (Pa.) Certain luiscrupulous per- 
 sons circulated malicious reports of the un- 
 soundness of a bank, and such st^itomcnts in- 
 jured the bank but not to a great extent. 
 Opinion: Under a Pennsylvania statute such 
 persons can be punished. Tiie bank should 
 lay the facts before the county prosecuting 
 otiicer for the proper action, ^'ol. 'A, p. 27«), 
 Xov., 1910. 
 
 796. (Tenn.) .\ person tells several 
 customers that the bank is in bad shape. 
 This statement, wiiich is untrue, causes the 
 depositors to become frigiitened and to with- 
 draw their funds. The bank wants the 
 offender punished criminally. Ojnnion: 
 
 99
 
 797 
 
 DIGEST OF LEGAL OPLMOXS 
 
 Slander or oral (leraiiKitioii is not a crime at 
 common law and a person uttering deroga- 
 tory and untrue statements affecting the sol- 
 vency of a hank oamiot be punislied crimi- 
 nally in the absence of a statute making such 
 offense a crime. The "Derogatory State- 
 ment" Act drafted on behalf of this Associa- 
 tion has been enacted in a number of states 
 but not, as yet, in Tennessee. A civil action 
 for slander will lie. Vol. G, p. 577, Feb., 
 1914. 
 
 797. (Va.) The former president of a 
 
 bank circulated derogatory and untrue state- 
 ments affecting its credit and solvency by ad- 
 vising customers to withdraw their money, 
 as the bank was going to "bust" and also 
 causing publication of untrue statements in 
 the local newspajicr. Opinion: The bank 
 may maintain an action in libel and slander 
 for damages. The offender is probably not 
 punishable criminally under the existing 
 statutory law of Virginia, and legislation 
 covering this case similar to that of other 
 states is necessary. A^ol. 5, p. 241, Oct., 1912. 
 
 LOST AND STOLEN PAPER 
 
 Checks lost in mail 
 
 See 390, 817, 818 
 
 798. (Ind.) Bank A cashed a check in- 
 dorsed to it by its customer and the check 
 was forwarded by mail for collection to cor- 
 respondent bank. The check was lost in the 
 mail. Opinion: The right of the correspond- 
 ent bank to charge the amount of the check 
 back would depend on whether prompt in- 
 quiry was made and Bank A was notified. 
 In the event the amount was charged back 
 Bank A would have recourse upon its custom- 
 er as indorser, by causing substituted present- 
 ment to be made by means of a copy or de- 
 scription of the check, and upon refusal to 
 pay by giving due notice to the indorser. 
 Had Bank A taken the check as collection 
 agent, its duty would be to notify its prin- 
 cipal without unreasonable delay and the 
 burden would be upon the customer of pro- 
 curing a duplicate or a copy upon which to 
 make a substituted presentment. Vol. 2, p. 
 484, May, 1910. 
 
 799. (Tex.) Bank A sent Bank B a 
 draft on Bank C, which Bank B credited to 
 Bank A. The draft was drawn by a stranger 
 and had been indorsed to Bank A by one of 
 its customers. Two months later Bank B 
 notified Bank A that the draft was lost in the 
 mails and charged the amount back against 
 Bank A. Opinion: Bank B in delaying two 
 months is guilty of such negligence as to 
 make the draft its own, and cannot charge the 
 amount back to Bank A. \o\. 2, p. 154, 
 Oct., 1910. 
 
 Checks signed in blank 
 
 800. (Mo.) A drawee bank paid three 
 checks, which were signed in blank by the 
 drawer, and never delivered, but were stolen, 
 filled out and negotiated. Opinion: The 
 
 drawee which paid the checks can charge the 
 amount to the drawer's account because of 
 breach of an implied contract duty to exercise 
 care. The drawer, however, has a right of 
 recovery from the banks which purchased and 
 collected such checks, because under the rule 
 of the law merchant and the Negotiable In- 
 struments Act an incompleted instrument not 
 delivered is not a valid contract in the hands 
 of any holder, notwithstanding its subsequent 
 unauthorized completion and negotiation. 
 Vol. 7, p. 219, Oct., 1914. See 293. 
 
 Holder in due course of stolen paper 
 
 See 272, 293, G47, 823, 827, 894 
 
 801. (Minn.) A draft by a bank on its 
 correspondent, issued to A, its customer, and 
 indorsed by A to B, was claimed to have been 
 lost. A duplicate was issued and later paid 
 by the bank in addition to stopping payment 
 upon the original. Eight and one-half 
 months after date of the draft, the original 
 having been found, was cashed by B at a 
 bank, Avhich presented it to payor bank where 
 it was protested for non-payment. Opinion : 
 The Xegotiable Instruments Act provides that 
 if an instrument payable on demand is nego- 
 tiated an unreasonable length of time after 
 its issue, the purchaser is not a holder in due 
 course. Under this, the negotiation of a 
 check of a customer on a bank eight months 
 after its issue would probably be held not 
 within a reasonable time, but a distinction 
 has been taken in some cases between an or- 
 dinary check and a banker's draft as to time 
 limit for negotiation and the question of the 
 period of time for free circulation of such 
 instruments before they are discredited has 
 not yet been definitely settled. As to banker's 
 drafts, the question will remain somewhat 
 problematical until a more definite rule is es- 
 tablished bv the courts indicating what is an 
 
 100
 
 LOST AND STOLEN PAPER 
 
 SIO 
 
 unreasonable length of time of negotiation 
 under Section 53 of the Negotiable Instru- 
 ments Act to deprive a purchaser of the status 
 of a holder in due course. Vol. 11, p. 489, 
 March, 1919. 
 
 802. (Ore.) A bank cashed a check 
 which was indorsed in blank by the payee 
 and stolen from him. The bank had no 
 notice of the loss. Payment of the check was 
 stopped. Opinion: The bank acquired per- 
 fect title to the bearer check and can enforce 
 payment from the drawer and the payee. Vol. 
 7, p. 776, April, 1915. 
 
 803. (S. Dak.) A banker's draft was 
 stolen from a payee, who was forced to in- 
 dorse the draft. Payment was stopped on 
 tlie draft and the same was protested. The 
 payee wants a duplicate draft. Opinion: 
 Assuming tliat the original draft was not sur- 
 rendered, it would not be safe for the issuing 
 bank to issue a duplicate without receiving 
 indemnity as protection against liability on 
 the original which might have been acquired 
 by an innocent purcliaser for value before 
 presentment and protest. The fact that the 
 indorsement was under duress would be no 
 defense against a holder in due course. Vol. 
 7, p. 580, Feb., 1915. 
 
 804. (W. Va.) The Baltimore and Ohio 
 Pailroad Company issued its check for $60 to 
 John Doe, who indorsed it in blank and 
 cashed it with a pool room proprietor. Short- 
 ly after the proprietor lost the check and im- 
 mediately notified the company not to honor 
 the check if presented without his indorse- 
 ment. The check was stolen and negotiated 
 to an innocent purchaser for value. Opin- 
 ion: Where a check, bearing indorsement in 
 blank of tlie payee, is stolen from the owner 
 and negotiated to an iiiuocont purchaser for 
 value, the latter is a hohler in due course and 
 acquires title to the check with ri^lit of en- 
 forcement. Vol. 10, p. 378, Nov., 1917. 
 
 805. (Wyo.) A's clicck to H, iiidorscd 
 in blank by the hitter, is stolen and ncgotiatcil 
 to K, an innocent purchaser, for value. Pay- 
 ment was stopped by A. Opinion: K as 
 holder in due course has a right to enforce 
 payment from tlie drawer and indorser. Tlie 
 check was nuide payable to bearer by the in- 
 dorsement in blank and E was an innocent 
 holder in due course, notwithstanilinu' it had 
 been stolen. Vol. 10, p. 378, Nov., liMT. 
 
 Instrument indorsed in blank and stolen 
 
 806. (Ariz.) A bank ])iirchiiscd in good 
 faith l)efore maturitv and for value a ncLfo- 
 
 tiable certificate of deposit, indorsed in blank 
 by the payee. The seller from whom the 
 certificate was acquired had stolen the same 
 from the payee. The issuing bank refused 
 payment because of a stop payment order. 
 pillion: The purchasing bank is a holder in 
 due course and may enforce payment from 
 the issuing bank. The certificate indorsed 
 in blank is payable to bearer and good title 
 could be acquired, even through one who 
 had stolen it. Vol. 10, p. 851, June, 1918. 
 
 807. (111.) A check was indorsed in 
 blank by the payee, stolen from him without 
 delivery and negotiated to a merchant for 
 value. The drawee under a stop payment 
 order refused to pay the check. Opinion: 
 The bank is not liable but the merchant as a 
 bona fide purchaser can recover from the 
 drawer and the payee, although the check 
 was never delivered bv the payee. Vol. 7, p. 
 1001, June, 1915. 
 
 808. (N. Y.) Where a stock certificate 
 indorsed in blank is lost by the owner and sold 
 by the finder to an innocent purchaser for 
 value, latter acquires title as against owner 
 under Stock Transfer Act which gives full ne- 
 gotiabilitv to certificates of stock. Vol. 9, p. 
 M7, Aug., 1916. 
 
 809. (Okla.) A cashier's check indorsed 
 in h\i\nk liy the payee was lost and purchased 
 by the proprietor of a drug store from the 
 finder. The purchaser knew the seller to be 
 a ganilder, and that he was not the jierson 
 named as payee. Payment of the check was 
 stopped and the bank seeks to know whether 
 it must reimburse the payee and also whether 
 it can demand a return of the check. Opin- 
 ion : Where a cashier's check is indorsed in 
 blank by the payee and lost and is purchased 
 by a nicrrhant frtun the Under, in good faith 
 and for value, the latter is a holder in due 
 course with right to enforce payment of the 
 instrument, and the fact that the purchnser 
 knew the seller to be a gambler is not, of it- 
 self, sullicient to deprive him of his stjitus an 
 holder in due course, in the absence of know- 
 ledge of facts which would make his tiking 
 the instrument an act of bad faith. Vol. 11, 
 p. 27!>, Nov., 1918. 
 
 810. (R. I.) A gave his note payable at 
 a bank to B, who lost the instrument. C 
 found it and negotiated it to an innocent pur- 
 chaser for value, who received payment at the 
 bank before B could serve notice. Opinion: 
 Where a note indorsed in blank by the payee 
 is lost and negotiated by the finder to a holder 
 in due course, the latter acquires a good title 
 
 101
 
 811 
 
 DIGEST OF LEGAL OPINIOXS 
 
 as a;j:ainst the payee. Assuminf2[ payment has 
 been stopped and notice of the loss published 
 in the newspaper, this wouhl not be sulhcient 
 to protect the maker and payee from liability, 
 unless it could be ])roved that the purchaser 
 for value read the article. Vol. 11, p. 279, 
 Nov., 1918. 
 
 811. (W. Va.) A check indorsed in 
 blank by the payee was stolen and cashed at 
 a bank. The drawer stopped payment before 
 the check reached the drawee. Opinion: The 
 cashinfj bank was a bona fide purchaser from 
 the thief, and being a holder in due course 
 can enforce against the drawer and the in- 
 dorser. Vol. 7, p. 168, Sept., 1914. 
 
 Lost letter of credit 
 
 812. (Cal.) A Texas bank issued a gen- 
 eral letter of credit to one J. E. C, authoriz- 
 ing the latter to draw drafts up to $200. 
 The letter contained the signature of J. E. 
 C. for identification. The letter was stolen 
 and attached to a forged draft for the full 
 amount and cashed by a bank in California 
 Opinion: The California bank is the loser and 
 cannot hold the bank issuing the letter of 
 credit responsible. Vol. 7, p. 34, July, 1914. 
 See G19. 
 
 813. (N. M.) A bank issued a letter 
 of credit addressed generally and authorizing 
 a specified customer, and not the bearer to 
 draw for amount within thirty days from date. 
 The letter became lost before any checks were 
 drawn, and the customer desired a duplicate. 
 Opinion : A duplicate can safely be issued by 
 the bank without indemnity except as against 
 the customer's dishonesty. The bank would 
 be liable to bona fide purchasers of checks ne- 
 gotiated bv the customer. Vol. 8, p. 908, 
 April, 1916. 
 
 Lost pass-book 
 
 814. (Cal.) The fund in a savings bank 
 had been withdrawn by a depositor upon 
 claim of loss of his pass-book. Later he 
 fraudulently negotiated to an innocent pur- 
 chaser his draft and pass-book on the ac- 
 count. Can payment of the instrument be 
 enforced against the bank? Opinion: A 
 bank which pays a savings deposit to its de- 
 positor without production of the book, upon 
 claim of loss, is not liable to an innocent pur- 
 chaser to whom a draft upon the bank, ac- 
 companied by the pass-book, has been nego- 
 tiated, the pass-book not being a negotiable 
 instrument. Vol. 9, p. 820, April, 1917. 
 
 815. (Cal.) A savings bank depositor 
 claimed tliat his bank-l)Ook was either lost or 
 stolen. ^J'he bank re'juired an indemnity 
 Ijond in douijle the amount of the deposit, be- 
 fore issuing a duplicate book or before paying 
 over the balance. Oirinion: It is customary 
 for savings banks to print in pass-books a rule 
 that indemnity will be required before mak- 
 ing payment in case of loss. These pass-book 
 rules are generally held contracts, but the 
 courts are divided as to enforcing the contract 
 of indemnity. A majority hold that the 
 pass-book being non-negotiable, the bank is 
 protected if it pays or issues a duplicate with- 
 out indemnity. But where the bank is not 
 satisfied as to the identity of the depositor 
 who claims payment, the right to indemnity 
 may be upheld'. Vol. 4, p. 618, April, 1912. 
 
 816. (Pa.) The depositor of a savings 
 bank lost his pass-book and applied for a 
 duplicate. The bank asks as to the necessity 
 of a bond of indemnity before issuing the du- 
 plicate. Opinion: There is no necessity for 
 a bond of indemnity before paying money or 
 issuing a duplicate, except where the bank is 
 uncertain as to the identity of its depositor. 
 Ordinarily, there is no necessity for such re- 
 quirement, the pass-book being non-negoti- 
 able. Where there is a by-law providing for 
 such indemnity, the courts will refuse bank's 
 right to require a bond unless some necessity 
 is shown. Vol. 5, p. 662, April, 1913. 
 
 Duplicate for lost checks 
 See 824 
 
 817. (Colo.) A check was lost in the 
 mail after the payee had deposited it in his 
 bank. Opinion: Where the bank takes the 
 check as owner, it has the burden of obtaining 
 a duplicate and the duty of presenting the 
 item in order to charge the indorser in case 
 of dishonor ; but if the bank received the item 
 for collection, its duty is simply to notify the 
 customer of the loss without unreasonable de- 
 lay. The legal right of the bank to charge 
 back to a customer a check lost in the mail 
 depends on where title to the check rests, 
 which must be determined by the rule of law 
 in the state where the bank is located, or may 
 depend upon agreement or custom. Vol. 2, 
 p. 155, Oct..- 1909. See 798. 
 
 818. (N. C.) A customer mailed to his 
 bank several checks for deposit. The bank 
 acknowledged receipt by regular card but the 
 checks were misplaced by the bank before 
 they were entered in the books to his credit. 
 After seven months, the customer claimed 
 
 102
 
 LOST AXD STOLEN PAPER 
 
 S25 
 
 credit for these items, which the bank refused 
 to give without receiving duplicates of the lost 
 checks. The bank had forwarded monthly 
 statements of the depositor's account, in each 
 of which there was an omission of the credit. 
 Opinion: The bank cannot refuse to give the 
 customer credit before obtaining duplicate, 
 but there is an equitable obligation on his 
 part to give the bank all the information in 
 his power to enable the bank to frame dupli- 
 cates or written particulars upon which pre- 
 sentment for payment can be made, and the 
 drawer ultimatelv looked to for payment. 
 Vol. 4, p. 192, Feb., 1912. 
 
 Duplicates for lost government bonds 
 
 819. (W. Va.) Where coupon bouds of 
 the government are lost or stolen and are ac- 
 quired by a bona fide purchaser from a finder 
 or thief, the hitter's title is superior to that of 
 the former owner and there is no provision 
 of the Federal Statutes to protect the original 
 owner in such case. But where such bonds 
 are wholly or partly destroyed or defaced and 
 can be identified, the Federal Statutes provide 
 for the issue of duplicates upon giving of in- 
 demnity and also provide for the issue of dup- 
 licates for lost or destroyed registered bonds. 
 Vol. 11, p. 41, July, 1918. 
 
 Duplicate for lost stock certificates 
 
 820. (N. J.) A stockholder in a bank 
 claimed to have lost his certificates of stock 
 unindorsed. The bank wishes protection 
 against dishonesty. Opinion: The l)ank 
 should issue duplicate certificates and re<iuiro 
 a sufficient bond of indemnity of tlie stock- 
 holder. The object of the boiul is to protect 
 the bank against tlie claim of a bona fide pur- 
 chaser for value of the lost certificates who 
 derived title tiirough the stockholder, wlio 
 may have been dishonest. Vol. 3, p. (576, 
 May, 1911. 
 
 821. (Ohio.) A stockhohlcr of a na- 
 tional bank claims to have lost his certificate 
 and requests a duplicate. Opinion: As a cer- 
 tificate of stock is freely transferable by the 
 owner, the bank is entitled to a bond of in- 
 demnity to ]irotect it against liability upon 
 the oris,nnal certificate. Vol. 11, \^. 391, Jan., 
 1919. " 
 
 822. (W. Va.) A corporation refused to 
 issue a new certificate of stock to replace one 
 stolen from the owner, unless the owner fur- 
 nished a surety conijiany bond. The owner 
 tendered an individual indemnity bond, 
 which was refused by the corporation, pur- 
 
 suant to a provision in its by-laws. Opin- 
 ion: The corporation cannot enforce the 
 by-law, which requires a surety company as 
 distinguished from an individual bond before 
 issuing dujjlicate for stolen certificate. The 
 character and sufficiency of the bond is for 
 the court to determine if the jiarties cannot 
 agree. Vol. G, p. G84, April, liH4. 
 
 823. (W. Va.) Certain certificates of 
 stock were lield by a national bank as collat- 
 eral security and were lost through robbery. 
 To enable the owners of the lost stock certifi- 
 cates to procure (luj)licates, the bank became 
 surety on indemnity bonds. Opinion: It was 
 not an ultra vires act for the bank to become 
 surety, for although the loss of stock certifi- 
 cates imposes no real loss upon the owner in 
 the absence of statute conferring full nego- 
 tiability, but only the burden of obtaining 
 duplicates, the bank has a special title in such 
 certificates and an interest in obtaining du- 
 ]^licates to be lodged with it as security, so 
 long as the loan is unpaid, which would make 
 the giving of indemnity an act in its own in- 
 terest aiul within its powers. Vol. 4, p. 425, 
 Jan., 1912. 
 
 Indemnity bond for issue of duplicates 
 Si-e 81G, H-22, 82.S 
 
 824. (Mo.) A bank issued to A its 
 cashier's check which was lost. Before issu- 
 ing a duplicate, the bank rcijuested an indem- 
 nity bond in double the amount. A refused 
 to give the bond, but produced an affidavit 
 that the check was lost witluuit indorsement. 
 Opinion: The bank is entitled to re(|uire in- 
 demnity as a pre-requisite to paying the cash- 
 ier's check alleged to be unindon-^ed when 
 lost, for notwithstanding the affidavit, the 
 bank would not be relieved from liability to 
 pay an innocent purchaser should the affidavit 
 prove false or should the payee thereafter find 
 and negotiate the original cashier's check. 
 Vol. 8, p. 707, Feb., 191G. 
 
 825. (Neb.) A depositor, who claimed 
 he had lost his certificate of deposit, in- 
 structed the bank to stop ]>ayment thereon 
 and applied for a duplicate certificate, al- 
 though he could not alTord an indoninity 
 boiul. The l)ank was not well aci]uainted 
 with the depositor. Opinion : Whore a dejws- 
 itor claims that his neirotiable certificate of 
 deposit has been lost or stolen, the only safe 
 course for the bank is to require a bond of 
 indemnity before issuing a second certificate. 
 But if the amount of certificate is small and 
 the bank believes the statement of the depos- 
 itor, it can waive the bond and take the de- 
 
 103
 
 82G 
 
 DKIKST OF LEGAL OPINIONS 
 
 positor's adidavit. Vol. 5, p. 301, Nov., 
 1912. 
 
 826. (N. Dak.) Where a bank issues its 
 tlral't upon its correspondent in favor of a 
 third party who claims to have lost same and 
 requests a duplicate, tlie issnin<i; bank as a 
 pre-requisite to issuing such duj)licate is en- 
 titled to a l)ond of indemnity to save it harm- 
 less should tlic original be negotiated under 
 indorsement of the payee, but where a draft 
 is made payable directly to the correspondent 
 upon which drawn and is lost, duplicate may 
 safely be issued without indemnity. Vol. 10, 
 p. 598, Feb., 1918. 
 
 Effect of "duplicate unpaid" on draft 
 
 827. (Wash.) A Washington bank 
 issued to its customer a draft on New York, 
 which was stolen from the payee after he had 
 
 indorsed it. A duplicate draft was issued 
 and paid. Afterwards the st^jlen draft was 
 cashed for value, was forwarded by the holder 
 for })ayment and was protested. Opinion: 
 I'lic Wasl)ington bank is lialjle to the holder 
 and would have remedy over against its cus- 
 tomer. If in this case the original draft had 
 upon it the words "duplicate unpaid," the 
 drawer would not be liable to the holder. 
 Vol. 4, p. 28, July, 1911. See 909. 
 
 Unsigned bank currency stolen and 
 circulated 
 
 828. (Pa.) Where national bank notes 
 are lost or stolen and put into circulation 
 without the signature or upon forged signa- 
 tures, the public is protected, and the bank 
 and not the holder stands the los?. Vol. 6, 
 p. 684, April, 1914. 
 
 MAIL 
 
 Acceptance of offer by mail 
 
 Loss of registered mail 
 
 829. (Utah.) A from Salt Lake City 
 makes an offer to B in New York City, which 
 B accepts by mail. The question is asked 
 whether the contract is made when B places 
 his acceptance in the mail, and would B have 
 power to revoke his acceptance by telegraph 
 before A received it. Opinion: Where an 
 offer is made by mail, acceptance by post, dis- 
 patched in due time as far as the acceptor is 
 concerned, concludes the contract, notwith- 
 standing delay or miscarriage of the letter of 
 acceptance. It is always sufficient that the 
 offer be accepted in the mode either expressly 
 or impliedly required by the offeror. There 
 is a contrary view in Massachusetts. Eevo- 
 cation of an acceptance is valid if communi- 
 cated before the acceptance is communicated. 
 Vol. 11, p. 493, March, 1919. 
 
 Gift of bank draft through mail 
 
 830. (111.) A sister, intending to make 
 a gift to her brother, purchased a bank draft 
 payable to his order and mailed it to him. 
 The brother died before the mail was deliv- 
 ered, O'pini'On: The gift was not completed 
 for want of delivery and the sister and not 
 the brother's estate is entitled to the money 
 represented by the draft. In this case, the 
 post-office is not to be regarded as the agent 
 of the brother, and delivery to the post-office 
 is not delivery to the addressee. Vol, 6, p. 92, 
 Aug., 1913. 
 
 831, (Ark.) Where a bank receives for 
 collection a draft with Liberty bonds payable 
 to bearer attached and forwards same through 
 the registered mail, it would appear that such 
 method of forwarding (without insuring the 
 package unless the amount is unusually large) 
 is the exercise of reasonable care and the bank 
 would not be responsible where the securities 
 are lost through robbery of the post-office. 
 The fact that the draft was mailed direct to 
 the payor, although held by some courts a 
 negligent method, would not charge the bank 
 with responsibility where neglect or failure of 
 the pavor was not the cause of loss. Vol. 11, 
 p. 559; April, 1919. 
 
 832, (Kan.) A mail pouch containing a 
 registered package addressed from one bank 
 to anotlier was stolen from one of the trucks 
 at a railroad depot. The package contained 
 $1,500 currency and was being transported by 
 the railroad company. Opinion: The nature 
 of the railroad's employment in carrying 
 registered or imregistered mail is as public 
 agent and not as common carrier for the in- 
 dividual, and there is no liability to the in- 
 dividual owner for loss of registered mail 
 caused by negligence or even theft of a rail- 
 road employee, unless in' a particular case the 
 negligence of the corporation itself, as distin- 
 guished from its subordinates, was the direct 
 cause of the loss. Vol. 3, p. 678, :\fay, 1911. 
 
 833, (W, Va,) A bank received a letter 
 and check purporting to be signed by A, its 
 
 104
 
 MARRIED WOMEN" 
 
 843 
 
 customer, requesting the amount be sent by- 
 registered mail to A at a place named. The 
 check and letter were forged b}- a person im- 
 personating A. The bank sent the money by 
 registered package addressed to A at the 
 place named, and the postmaster delivered it 
 to the impersonator. The bank reimbursed 
 its customer and seeks to hold the postmaster 
 liable because he failed to procure proper 
 identification before delivering the registered 
 
 package. Oinnion: The postmaster would 
 not be personally liable unless guilty of neg- 
 ligence in the performance of his official duty, 
 and where he delivered the package to the 
 precise person who had asked that the money 
 be forw arded and whom the bank intended as 
 the person to receive it in mistaken belief 
 that such person was its customer, it is doubt- 
 ful if the postmaster could be held liable. 
 Vol. 4, p. 757, June, 1912. 
 
 MARRIED WOMEN 
 
 See Husband and Wife, 664-6(58. 
 
 Married women as surety and accommo- 
 dation party 
 
 834. (Ga.) Under the laws of Georgia, 
 a woman cannot bind herself as surety or ac- 
 commodation indorser, except that she will 
 be held liable thereon to a bona fide holder for 
 value without notice of the character of the 
 indorsement. Vol. 9, p. 418, Nov., 191G. 
 
 835. (Minn.) A married woman in 
 Minnesota owning eighty acres of land be- 
 came surety on the note of another person. 
 Opinion: A married woman in Minnesota has 
 capacity to bind herself as surety upon the 
 note of another, and her property is liable for 
 her debts the same as if unmarried. Vol. G, 
 p. 270, Oct., 1913. 
 
 836. (Mo.) In Missouri a married 
 woman has power to make contracts in lier 
 own name and bind herself as suretv upon her 
 husband's note. Vol. 6, p. 270, Oct., 1913. 
 
 837. (N. J.) A note dated and payable 
 in New York, and bearing the indorsement of 
 a married woman wlio was a resident of New 
 Jersey, was presented at a New York bank for 
 discount. Opinion: In New Jersey a mar- 
 ried woman cannot bind herself as accommo- 
 dation indorser or surety, unless estopped to 
 deny liability. But the bank has the right 
 to presume that the indorsement was made in 
 New York, where the same is valid, and the 
 married woman is estopped from denying 
 that lier inrlorsemcnt is a New York contract. 
 Vol. 9, p. 238. Sept., 1916. 
 
 838. (N. J.) In New Jersey, a married 
 woman cannot bind herself upon a note ex- 
 ecuted for the accommoflation of another un- 
 less she or her sej)arate estate derives a bene- 
 fit therefrom. But a married woman can 
 make a note for a loan to herself, although in- 
 tending to turn the money over to her hus- 
 band. In such a case a note executed by the 
 married woman as sole maker, jiayable to a 
 bank and indorsed by her husband, would be 
 
 safe as an enforceable instrument, and the 
 proceeds should be paid bv the bank to tlie 
 wife. Vol. -i, p. 597, March, 1913. 
 
 839. (N. J.) Under the law of New 
 Jersey a married woman cannot bind herself 
 as accommodation indorser, and the fact that 
 the paper so indorsed is made by a corpora- 
 tion, of which she is a stockholder, does not 
 make the indorsement binding upon her 
 under the New Jersey statute. \o\. 3, p. 
 401, Jan., 1911. 
 
 840. (Pa.) A bank discounted tlie note 
 of a married woman, where it contained a 
 declaration that the funds were for her pri- 
 vate use, chargeable against her separate es- 
 tate. Opinion: Payment could be enforced 
 Iiy the bank unless it knew that the married 
 woman was in fact a mere accommodation 
 maker. In Pennsylvania, a married woman 
 can bind herself on a note executed for her 
 own lienefit, but not as accommodation maker 
 for another. Vol. 6, p. 758, May, 1914. 
 
 841. (Pa.) In Pennsylvania every re- 
 striction im]H»sed by the common law upon 
 the capacity of a married wi»man to contract 
 has been removed, except in two cases: (1) 
 she cannot become accommodation indor.ter. 
 maker, guarantor or surety for another; and 
 (2) she cannot, unless her husband joins, con- 
 vey or mortgage her real estate. For a cita- 
 tion of decisions showing detailed develop- 
 ment of the law. see Vol. 5, p. 65H, April. 
 1!M3. 
 
 842. (Pa.) .\ married woman in Penn- 
 sylvania has no power to bind herself as ac- 
 commodation indorser, whether it be for the 
 accommodation of her hupi>and or other 
 maker. The Enabling .\ct of 1893 exprcs.sly 
 excepts contract.^; of this character. Vol. 3, 
 p. 1 i:.. Sept.. 1910. 
 
 843. (W. Va.) In West Virginia a mar- 
 ried woman can bind herself as .•surety upon 
 note of her husband. Vol. 7. p. 383, Dec., 
 1914. 
 
 105
 
 844 
 
 MINORS AND INCOMPETENTS 
 
 Contracts of persons under guardianship 
 
 844. (Minn.) An old man was put 
 uiuler j^aiardiHiisliip on May 2G, 11)10. Not 
 knowiiifj^ this, a bank on October 31, ]!)10, 
 consolidated three notes, which he owed it, 
 into one and surrendered the old ones. Two 
 of the notes were dated prior to the guardian- 
 ship. Opinion: The ]\Iinnesota statute makes 
 contracts of a person put under guardianship 
 void — but notes given before the guardian 
 was appointed are collectible, if acquired in 
 good faith and without notice of the incom- 
 petency. The bank would have a right in a 
 proper proceeding to recover the amount of 
 the two notes, which were surrendered under 
 mistake of fact. Vol. 5, p. 99, Aug., 1912. 
 
 Liability of minor as stockholder 
 
 845. (Fla.) A minor was presented with 
 a share of stock in a national bank, the trans- 
 fer being registered on the books. Fifteen 
 months later the bank failed and the receiver 
 is trying to enforce the full 100 per cent, 
 assessment against the parent of the child. 
 Opinion : The minor cannot be held liable for 
 the assessment, as he has no capacity to assent 
 to become a stockholder, but the person mak- 
 ing the transfer is not relieved from liability. 
 The parent of the minor cannot be held liable 
 for the assessment unless he himself owned 
 the stock and transferred it to his child. 
 Vol. 11, p. 5G1, April, 1919. 
 
 Payment by bank to incompetent deposi- 
 tor unsafe 
 See 275, 302 
 
 846. (Cal.) A "trusty" in a hospital for 
 treatment of the insane had earned and de- 
 posited in a bank a considerable sum of 
 money. The "bank questions its right to 
 allows the depositor to withdraw any of his 
 deposit. Opinion: The bank should make 
 payment only to the legally appointed guard- 
 ian. It would be unsafe to pay the "trusty" 
 who has been judicially declared insane and 
 has not been discharged as cured. Vol. 5, p. 
 380, Dec, 1912. 
 
 847. (N. Y.) Checks are signed by a 
 depositor, who is in a sanitarium taking the 
 "gold cure" for alcoholism and wdiose father 
 notified the bank that the depositor is in- 
 competent. Opinion: The safest course is for 
 the bank to refuse to honor the checks until 
 it is reasonably sure that, in issuing them, the 
 
 drawer was in possession of his reason sujfi- 
 ciently to know the nature of his acts. The 
 liability a bank would iiK.ur for injuring the 
 depositor's credit in a case of pos^ilde com- 
 petency would be negligible. Vol. 2, p. 229, 
 Dec, 1909. 
 
 Payment of check to infant agent 
 
 848. (Wis.) A customer sends his son, 
 a minor, to the bank to cash checks amount- 
 ing to $1,000. In the event the boy is robbed 
 on his return to his father, would the bank 
 in any way be liable? Opinion: An infant 
 or minor may act as the agent of another per- 
 son and a bank which pays a check to an in- 
 fant, who has been authorized by his prin- 
 cipal to collect same, is protected, although 
 the money is lost by or stolen from tlie infant 
 and never reaches the principal. Vol. 10, p. 
 714, April, 1918. 
 
 Withdrawal of deposit by minor 
 
 849. (N. Y.) Tlie Xew York statute 
 allowing banks to pay deposits to minors 
 w^ould probably be held applicable to national 
 banks. The statute contemplates a deposit 
 by or in the name of any minor, and requires 
 that the bank shall hold the deposit for the 
 benefit of the minor with the authority to pay 
 the same to him. There is no provision fix- 
 ing a minimum aae limit. Vol. 9. p. 502, 
 Dec, 1916. 
 
 850. (N. Y.) A minor deposited $25 in 
 a bank, obtaining the bank's certificate of de- 
 posit. The minor indorsed the certificate to 
 a firm in payment for a suit of clothes. Be- 
 fore the certificate reached the bank for pay- 
 ment, the minor's father stopped payment. 
 Opinion: The bank has the right to pay the 
 amount of the certificate to a bona fide in- 
 dorsee of the minor, although the father or- 
 dered the bank not to pay. The indorsement 
 by the minor would pass the property in the 
 certificate to the indorsee, although the minor 
 might not be lialile on the indorsement. Vol. 
 5, p. 243, Oct., 1912. 
 
 Withdrawal of deposit by parent 
 
 851. (Cal.) A bank which holds a de- 
 posit of a minor receives the following letter : 
 
 "First Xational Bank of , Gentlemen : 
 
 You and each of you are hereby notified not 
 
 to cash any more checks drawn by , 
 
 my son, he being a minor, until further notice 
 
 106
 
 MORTGAGES 
 
 S59 
 
 from his father. Signed, his father." The 
 bank asks if it should obey the instructions. 
 Opinion: Where a minor makes a deposit to 
 his personal credit and there is a statute, as 
 in California, exempting such deposit from 
 the control of all persons except creditors and 
 authorizing pa3'ment to the minor, it is be- 
 yond the power of the father of the minor to 
 stop payment of the minor's check. A par- 
 ent, as natural guardian, cannot control or 
 withdraw a deposit to the credit of a minor 
 in the absence of leijal appointment as guard- 
 ian of the estate. Vol. 11, p. G09, May, 1919. 
 
 852. (Cal.) A father, who deposited 
 money in a bank in California to the credit 
 of his son, a minor, has no right to withdraw 
 the same. By statute in California, the bank 
 holds the deposit free from the father's con- 
 trol and may pay the same to the minor, 
 taking his receipt or acquittance therefor. 
 Vol. 5, p. 244, Oct., 1912. 
 
 853. (N. J.) A parent cannot withdraw 
 a deposit to the credit of a minor without 
 letters of guardianship. When the New Jer- 
 sey statute provides that such deposit shall be 
 held for the ''exclusive right and benefit" of 
 
 the minor and "free from control of all other 
 persons except creditors" and "shall be paid" 
 to the minor whose receipt shall be a dis- 
 charge to the bank, it is doubtful whether 
 even a legally appointed guardian would 
 have the right to withdraw the deposit; and 
 it is uncertain whether this statute applies to 
 a national bank. Vol. 5, p. 52(j, Feb., 191 :i. 
 
 854. (Pa.) Inder decisions in Penn- 
 sylvania a parent has no right to withdraw a 
 deposit to the credit of a minor child, even 
 though the parent made the dejiosit; the par- 
 ent cannot control the child's property unless 
 he ha? been duly appointed as guardian and 
 the judicial policy of Pennsylvania is not to 
 appoint the parent as curator of the child's 
 estate. The statute in Pennsylvania on this 
 subject allows the bank to pay the deposit to 
 a minor free from the control of the legally 
 ap))ointed guardian. Vol. 6. p. 32, Julv, 
 1913. 
 
 855. (Tex.) A parent, as natural guard- 
 ian, cannot withdraw a deposit to the credit 
 of a minor in the absence of a legal appoint- 
 ment as guardian of the estate. Vol. 9, p. 
 422, Xov., 1916. 
 
 MORTGAGES 
 
 Mortgage in name of cashier 
 
 856. (Wis.) A mortgage runs to "John 
 Doe, Cashier, First National Bank," and an 
 assignment of such mortgage is executed by 
 "John Scott, Cashier, First National Bank," 
 successor of Doe. Opinion : The courts would 
 be likely to hold that the mortgage so drawn 
 and assignment so executed were instruments 
 running to and executed by the bank and not 
 the person named as cashier individually, but 
 the authorities are not all uniform. Although 
 a national bank has no power to take a real 
 estate mortgage for a present loan, only the 
 Government can complain and the mortgage 
 as ])etween the parties is not invalidated. 
 Vol. 5, p. 1 Of), Aug., 1912. 
 
 Chattel mortgages 
 See 738, 864 
 
 857. (Colo.) A note was payable on de- 
 mand, and the chattel mortgage given to se- 
 cure the same provided that if the mortgagor 
 shall pay the note of even date "due on de- 
 mand after date, or if no demand is made, 
 then note is due two years from date," the 
 mortgage shall be void. Opinion: A reason- 
 able construction is that the debt matures in 
 two years unless sooner demanded and the 
 
 holder is protected for thirty days thereafter 
 under the Colorado statute allowing thirty 
 davs after maturitv of the debt to take posses- 
 sion of the chattels. Vol. 8. p. :^1. Julv. 
 1915. 
 
 858. (Iowa.) A chattel mortgai:*' wms 
 given to secure the purchase price of personal 
 property bought by a man at a farm sale. 
 The bank to wiiom the mortgage was exe- 
 cuted asks whether it is necessary to have his 
 wife join in the mortgage. The question is 
 raised in view of the Iowa Code (Sec. 290('i, 
 Code 1897) which provides as follows: "That 
 no incumbrance of personal property which 
 may be held exempt from execution by the 
 head of a family, if a resident of the state. 
 shall be of any validity as to such exempt 
 property, utdess the husband and wife, if both 
 are living, concur in ami sisrn the same joint 
 instrument." Opinion: Iowa statute which 
 invalidates chattel mortpige of exempt prop- 
 erty unless both husliand and wife join in 
 mortgage, does not require joinder of wife 
 where mortgage executed to secure purchase 
 price of propertv. Vol. 11, p. 609, May, 
 1919. 
 
 859. (Kan.) In the absence of a statute 
 requiring the specific amount .secured to be 
 
 107
 
 800 
 
 DIGEST OF LEGAL OPINIONS 
 
 stated in the cliattel mortf]faKe, tlio weight of 
 authority is to the elTect tliat a provision in 
 the mortpjagc that it is given to secure a speci- 
 fied amount and "any other indehtedness" to 
 the mortgagee on future advances is valid and 
 enforceahle. Where the statute (as in Kan- 
 sas) requires the filing of an affidavit upon 
 renewal sjuHMfically stating the amount yet 
 due and un])aid under the chattel mortgage, 
 it is qnestionahlc whether additional advances 
 therafter made would he protected as against 
 a subsequent incumbrance under the terms of 
 the chattel mortgage which secures "any 
 other indehtedness," and it would be unsafe 
 to make an additional loan during the pen- 
 dency of the renewal. Vol. 6, p. 62G, March, 
 3914. 
 
 860. (Kan.) A note was dated and de- 
 livered in January and a chattel mortgage to 
 secure its payment was given by the maker 
 of the note the following February. Opin- 
 ion: The chattel mortgage was valid. The 
 mortgage should bear the date of its actual 
 execution, reference being made in the body 
 thereof to the note. Vol. 6, p. 213, Sept., 
 1913. 
 
 861. (Neb.) The owner of a farm filed 
 a lease containing an agreement by the lessee 
 to execute a chattel mortgage on the crops as 
 soon as planted and growing. Opinion: The 
 lessor would not be protected against a sub- 
 sequent mortgagee of the crops after they 
 were grown, in the event the promised mort- 
 gage was not given. Vol. 7, p. 308, Nov., 
 1914. 
 
 862. (Neb.) An order of release of a 
 chattel mortgage in Nebraska must be at- 
 tested and unless a chattel mortgage w'hich 
 has been paid is discharged in one of the two 
 modes prescribed by the statute within ten 
 days after request, the mortgagee would be 
 liable to the statutory penalty. Vol. 5, p. 
 23, July, 1912. 
 
 863. (N. J.) A bank, through its exec- 
 utive committee, sanctioned a loan of $1,500, 
 crediting this amount to a mortgagor and 
 taking as evidence three four-months' notes 
 of $500 each, secured by a chattel mortgage. 
 The mortgagor orally agreed with the bank's 
 cashier that, in case the committee a week 
 hence should object to the amount of the loan, 
 the mortgagor would then consent to charging 
 back $500 before maturity. The bank under 
 the New Jersey chattel mortgage act, filed an 
 affidavit of consideration, which did not in- 
 clude the oral agreement. The statute pro- 
 vides that a mortgage is absolutely void as 
 
 against creditors of the mortgagor unless it 
 has annexed thereto an affidavit stating the 
 consideration of tiie mortgage. The mort- 
 gagor became bankrupt and the bank relies on 
 the validity of the mortgage to recover the 
 loan. Opinion: It would seem that the affi- 
 davit stating that the consideration of the 
 chattel mortgage was for $1,500, was the 
 substantial truth and should not be held 
 defective, and the mortgage should not be 
 held void because it did not include a state- 
 ment of the oral agreement. Vol. 5, p. 446, 
 Jan., 1913. 
 
 Foreclosure of mortgage 
 
 864. (Iowa.) In the case of the fore- 
 closure of a mortgage on realty in Iowa, a 
 personal judgment is rendered against the 
 mortgagor (save in some excepted cases), and 
 a special execution issues against the mort- 
 gaged property; and where the debt is not 
 satisfied a general execution for the deficiency 
 issues against any other realty than held by 
 the mortgagor. In the case of the fore- 
 closue of a chattel mortgage in Iowa, where 
 the proceeds of a sale of the mortgaged chat- 
 tels are insufficient to pay the mortgage, the 
 mortgagor is personally liable for the defi- 
 ciency. Vol. 7, p. 99fi, June, 1915. 
 
 Mortgage notes 
 See 790 
 
 865. (Colo.) A mortgage note payable 
 to a bank was indorsed by the bank to John 
 Doe or Anna Doe without recourse. John 
 Doe died and the mortgagor is ready to pay 
 the note at maturity, but hesitates to receive 
 the release signed by Anna Doe. Opinion: 
 Anna Doe could execute a good release to the 
 mortgagor upon payment and surrender of 
 the note. The note indorsed by the bank 
 payable to alternative payees is negotiable 
 imder the Negotiable Instruments Law and 
 the indorsement by either one of the payees 
 passes title. Vol. 8, p. 611, Jan., 1916. 
 
 866. (Mo.) A first mortgage real estate 
 note gave the maker the option to pay $100 or 
 any multiple thereof on the principal at the 
 maturity of any coupon by giving the holder 
 of the note thirty days' notice in writing of 
 his intention. The maker gave notice that 
 he would pay the whole note at maturity of a 
 certain interest coupon. At such maturity 
 the maker paid the interest but concluded not 
 to pay the principal until it was due. Opin- 
 ion: The mere giving of notice of intention 
 does not mature the note, where the intention 
 
 108
 
 NATIONAL BANKS 
 
 872 
 
 has not been carried out by payment of the 
 principal. Vol. 3, p. 586, April, 1911. 
 
 867. (Neb.) A real estate mortgage 
 given to secure a loan drawing ten per cent, 
 interest, the highest legal rate in Nebraska, 
 contains a clause providing that the mort- 
 gagor shall pay taxes levied upon the mort- 
 gage or debt, or against the holder. Opinion: 
 The clause would probably render the trans- 
 action usurious, because it calls for payment 
 of taxes in addition to the highest legal rate. 
 Such a clause was formerly held to render 
 the mortgage note non-negotiable but a Ne- 
 braska statute now provides that its negotia- 
 bility is unaffected. Vol. 8, p. 419, Nov., 
 1915. 
 
 Priority between mortgage and mechan- 
 ic's lien 
 
 868. (N. C.) A mortgagor caused some 
 improvements to be made upon his property 
 after he had mortgaged it to a bank. The 
 party making the improvements was not paid 
 and duly filed a mechanic's lien. Thereupon 
 the property was sold, but the proceeds were 
 
 only sufficient to cover the mortgage. Opin- 
 ion: In the absence of a statute giving the 
 mechanic's lien priority, a prior recorded 
 mortgage takes precedence over a subsequent 
 mechanic's lien. Vol. 1, p. 140, Oct., 1908. 
 
 Wrong description in mortgage 
 
 869. (Okla.) A national bank as mort- 
 gagee of certain real estate recorded the 
 mortgage and learned tliat the mortgage 
 papers described a different parcel of land 
 from that intended. Opinion: If the owner 
 of the real estate which through error was not 
 described disposes of his rights therein by 
 sale or by mortgage to an innocent purchaser 
 for value, the latter's rights are superior to 
 those of the bank, regardless of the recorded 
 mortgage, but the bank has an equitable title, 
 good against the owner or attacliing creditor. 
 The course to pursue is to have the owner cor- 
 rect the mistake by giving a new correct mort- 
 gage and have that mortgage recorded ; if the 
 owner refuses, to file a bill in equity to compel 
 reformation of the mortgage. Vol. 4, p. 431, 
 Jan., 1912. 
 
 NATIONAL BANKS 
 
 See Banks and Banking, 164-193 ; Branch Banks, 261-265. 
 Advertising for "savings" accounts Deposits with trust company permitted 
 
 870. (N. Y.) A national bank about to 
 establish a savings department asks if there 
 is any state law prohibiting it from using the 
 words "savings department" or "savings" in 
 advertising in this connection. Opinion: 
 The conclusion seems warranted, despite 
 state laws prohibiting other tiian savings 
 banks from using or advertising the word 
 "savings" or from transacting business as a 
 savings bank, that it would be held within 
 the power of a national bank, free from con- 
 trol of state laws, to establish and advertise 
 a savings department and for savings ac- 
 counts (in so doing necessarily using and 
 advertising tlie word "savings''), and to carry 
 on sucli department in the same manner that 
 a savings bank carries on its business subject, 
 of course, to national laws and regulations of 
 tlie Federal Reserve Board. The question 
 will not be positively settled until decided by 
 the court of last resort. Wliile there may be 
 danger of violating a state law and of incur- 
 ring a penalty of $100 a day, it is for tlie na- 
 tional banks to consult their own attorneys 
 upon the proposition. Vol. 9, p. 404, Nov., 
 1910. See 188. 
 
 871. (Ind.) Tlie Federal Reserve Act 
 permits a national bank to carry on deposit 
 with a trust company to the extent of ten 
 per cent, of its own paid-up capital and sur- 
 plus. Vol. 8, p. 805, March, 1916. 
 
 Examination by revenue officer 
 
 872. (N. J.) The Collector of Internal 
 Revenue of a certain district in New Jersey 
 sent a man to examine the notes of a national 
 bank to see if they were properly stam{>cd. 
 The bank officer refu-sed him permission. 
 Opinion: According to the decision of a Fed- 
 eral district court in Pennsylvania (contrary 
 to the decision of another Federal district 
 court), a national l)ank officer lias no right to 
 refuse permission to an int<'nial revenue 
 officer or agent, acting luider Section 3177» 
 Rev., Stat., to examine tlie notes in its pos- 
 session to see if properly stamped, and the 
 bank is not exempted because of Section 5241, 
 Rev. Stat., limiting visitorial powers to the 
 Comptroller and the courts, but only an 
 officer or agent authorized l)y the statute has 
 such power of examination, whicli cannot be 
 delegated to a clerk or other person. Section 
 
 109
 
 873 
 
 DIGEST OF LECJAL OPINIONS 
 
 21 of the Federal Eeserve Act lias amplified 
 Section 5241, Eevised Statutes, and provides 
 "No bank shall lie subject to any visitorial 
 powers other than such as are authorized by 
 law, or vested in the courts of justice or such 
 as shall be or shall have been exercised or di- 
 rected by Congress, or by either House there- 
 of, or by any committee of Congress, or of 
 either house duly authorized." Vol. 11, p. 
 390, Jan., 1919. * See 173, 1312, 1324. 
 
 Federal jurisdiction 
 
 873. (N. Y.) The United States courts 
 had jurisdiction in cases brought by and 
 against the Second United States Bank but 
 not in cases by and against the First United 
 States Bank. The Federal statutes formerly 
 conferred jurisdiction upon the circuit court 
 in all suits brought by or against national 
 banks in the district, but this was repealed 
 in 1882 and the statute now provides that the 
 jurisdiction of suits by and against national 
 banks, except suits between them and the 
 United States or its officers and agents, shall 
 be the same as and not other than the juris- 
 diction of suits by or against banks not or- 
 ganized under any law of the United States. 
 Vol. 6, p. 504, Jan., 1914. 
 
 Guaranty of draft 
 
 See 177 ct seq 
 
 874. (Tenn.) B in Tennessee drew on 
 A in Ohio and a national bank in Ohio wired 
 a bank in Tennessee that it would guarantee 
 that B's draft would be paid. The Tennessee 
 bank paid B the amount of the draft, but 
 could not collect from the national bank 
 which was enjoined from making payment. 
 Opinion: The national bank had no power to 
 guarantee B's draft in which it had no inter- 
 est and from which it derived no substantial 
 benefit. The guaranty was idtra vires and 
 unenforceable. The same underlying prin- 
 ciple applies as well to state bank and trust 
 companies. Vol. 4, p. 27, July, 1911; Vol. 
 4, p. 152, Sept., 1911. 
 
 Limit of loan by national bank 
 
 875. (Col.) A national bank with a cap- 
 ital and surplus of $90,000, having loaning 
 capacity of $9,000 to any one borrower, dis- 
 counted a note of a state bank for $8,000 and 
 allowed such bank to overdraw its account by 
 $2,500. Opinion: The national bank ex- 
 ceeded the legal limit of its loaning power. 
 Vol. 9, p. 422, Nov., 1916. 
 
 876. (111.) When the limit is loaned by 
 a national bank to a corporation, an addi- 
 tional loan to a stockholder is not excessive 
 unless corporation is maker or indorser on 
 paper or loan to stockholder is for its benefit. 
 The National Bank Act contemplates that no 
 loan in excess of the limit shall be granted to 
 any one interest. Vol. 5, p. 108, Aug., 1912. 
 
 877. (N. Y.) Certain national bank ex- 
 aminers made a ruling that the purchase of 
 drafts with bills of lading attached in excess 
 of ten per cent, of the capital and surplus of 
 the bank created an excess loan to the concern 
 issuing the drafts ; that such excess loan was 
 a violation of Section 5200, United States Ee- 
 vised Statutes, unless the drafts are accepted 
 by the drawee before the purchase by the 
 bank. Opinion: Such ruling is not war- 
 ranted by the law and will not be sustained 
 by the courts. The Comptroller of the Cur- 
 rency concurs in the opinion that Section 
 5200, U. S. Revised Statutes, excepting from 
 the 10 per cent, limit of indebtedness of any 
 one person of money borrowed '^the discount 
 of bills of exchange drawn in good faith 
 against actually existing values*' does not re- 
 quire that such bills of exchange must be first 
 accepted before purchase. Vol. 1, p. 300, 
 Feb., 1909. 
 
 878. (N. Y.) Section 5200 U. S. Eev. 
 Stat, limiting loans by any association to a 
 single borrower to ten per cent, of capital and 
 surplus, although not judicially passed upon 
 is construed as not including liability of the 
 borrower for the interest upon the principal 
 sum loaned. Vol. 10, p. 780, May, 1918. 
 
 879. (Pa.) A national bank with a cap- 
 ital and surplus of $50,000 loaned A and B 
 as individuals $1,500 and $2,500 respectively. 
 A and B as partners want to borrow in ad- 
 dition ten per cent, of the capital stock 
 and surplus. Opinion: The National Bank 
 Act limits liability of any one borrower for 
 money borrowed to ten per cent, of capital 
 and surplus and includes in the liability of a 
 firm the liabilities of the several members. 
 The proposed loan would therefore be ex- 
 cessive. Vol. 9, p. 350, Oct., 1916. 
 
 880. (Tex.) A national bank loaned to 
 a firm ten per cent, of it^ capital and surplus. 
 An individual member of the firm asked for 
 a further loan of ten per cent. Opinion: 
 The further loan to such individual member 
 of the firm would be excessive and violative of 
 the National Bank Act. Vol. 4, p. 758, June, 
 1912. 
 
 110
 
 NATIONAL BANKS 
 
 887 
 
 881. (W. Va.) Section 24 of the Fed- 
 eral TJeserve Act empowering national banks 
 to make loans on farm lands in an aggrcgaie 
 sum equal to 25 per centum of its capital and 
 surplus does not modify Section 5200, U. S. 
 Revised Statutes, limiting loans to a single 
 borrower to 10 per cent, of capital and sur- 
 plus and no national bank may loan to any 
 person upon real estate more than 10 per 
 cent, of its capital and surplus. Vol. 11, p. 
 559, April, 1919. 
 
 Loan on certificates of deposit 
 
 882. (N. J.) There is nothing in the 
 National Bank Act to prohibit a bank from 
 loaning money on the security of its own cer- 
 tificates of deposit. It cannot, however, loan 
 on the security of its own shares of stock. 
 Vol. 2, p. 374, "March, 1910. 
 
 Power to donate services of clerk 
 
 883. (111.) The right and power of a 
 national bank to furnish such gratuities as 
 check books, pass-books, calendars and other 
 articles of utility has never been brought into 
 question. Should a dissatisfied stockholder 
 complain, the furnishing of such gratuities 
 to a reasonal)le extent would proliably be held 
 within the implied powers of the bank, as in 
 case of gratuitous collections. It has been 
 held an executive officer has no power to do- 
 nate the bank's funds for erection of a paper 
 mill. The donation of services of a clerk to 
 assist in conduct of a public sale as a means 
 of getting business for the bank might be 
 witliin its implied powers ; at all events not a 
 serious abuse of power. Vol. 5, p. 063, April, 
 1913. 
 
 Power to loan on mortgage 
 
 See S.jC), 8S1 
 
 884. (W. Va.) A customer borrowed 
 money from a national bank, and e.xecuied a 
 mortgage as security. The customer later 
 became bankrupt. Opinion: The security is 
 valid as against the borrower and his credit- 
 ors, and only the Governnient can attack the 
 transaction as an ultra vireff act. Tiie liank 
 can hold the security as against the trustee in 
 liankru|)tcy of the borrower. Vol. 4, p. 755, 
 June, 1912. 
 
 National bank as surety 
 
 885. (Tenn.) -\ national liank has no 
 power to become guarantor of the obligation 
 of another person in which it has no inter- 
 est. The individual members of the board 
 of directors of a national bank desiring to be- 
 
 come sureties on the bond of a county oflRcial 
 have the power so to do, but cannot bind the 
 bank upon such a contract. A'ol. G, p. 212, 
 Sept., 1913. 
 
 886. (W. Va.) A national bank as 
 pledgee of certain stock certificates pledged 
 as collateral becomes surety on an indemnity 
 bond authorized by its directors to enable the 
 owner to obtain duplicate for the stock col- 
 lateral, which has been stolen from the bank. 
 Opinion: The execution of such indemnity 
 bond by the bank either as principal or surety 
 was probably within the power of the bank 
 and even if ultra vire.<i the directors would not 
 Ije held personally liable by reason of such 
 authorization. Vol. 4, p. 688, May, 1912. 
 
 Trust powers 
 
 887. (Mo.) Inquiry is made as to the 
 right and extent a national liank having been 
 vested with trust powers can exercise func- 
 tions of executor and trustee in states other 
 than the state where it is located. Opinion: 
 Congress has now granted national banks, 
 when permitted by the Federal Reserve 
 Board, and when not in contravention of state 
 or local law. "the right to act as trustee, ex- 
 ecutor, administrator, registrar of stocks and 
 bonds, guardian of estates, assignee, receiver, 
 committee of estates of lunatics or in any 
 other fiduciary capacity in which state banks, 
 trust companies or other corporations which 
 come into competition with national banks 
 are permitted to act under the laws of the 
 state in which the national bank is located." 
 Section 11 K, Federal Reserve .Act. as 
 amended September 20, 191S. It would 
 seem to follow from this that whenever a 
 trust company or other corporation is em- 
 powered by the laws of the state in which ft 
 national bank is located, or has the power by 
 general grant witho\it restriction as to place, 
 to exercise the functions of executor or trustee 
 in a state other than that of its location, the 
 national bank, if otherwise eligible, would 
 have like power, subject, of course, to the re- 
 strictions, liinit^ations or prohibitions imposed 
 l)V the laws (»f such other state upon the exer- 
 cise by foreign corporations of trust powers 
 witliin its borders. .Assuming that a trust 
 company in any state and consequently a 
 national bank grant^^d etpiivaletit trust powers 
 has the power to exercise the function of ex- 
 ecutor and trustee outside the state, then the 
 abilitv to exercise such functions in another 
 state would depend upon the restrictions, lim- 
 itations or prohibitions imposed upon foreign 
 trust corjiorations. if anv, bv the laws of such 
 state. Vol. 11. p. 553, April. 1919. 
 
 Ill
 
 888 
 
 NEGOTIABILITY 
 
 Effect of acceptance indorsed on back of 
 bill 
 
 888. (Pa.) All acceptance by the drawee 
 imlorsed on tiie back of the bill, instead of 
 being written across the face, while unusual, 
 is valid at coniiuou law. Under the Nego- 
 tiable Instruments Act, however, the holder 
 is entitled to acceptance '^on the bill," pre- 
 sumable on its face, but if the holder takes the 
 indorsed acceptance, the instrument is valid 
 and negotiable. Vol. 11, p. 673, June, 1919. 
 
 Certainty as to payee 
 
 See 8(55 
 
 889. (Del.) A note is made payable to 
 "A, B, C, and others" because there is not 
 room enough to insert the names of all the 
 payees. The negotiability of the note is 
 questioned and it is also asked how a nego- 
 tiable form of note could be drawn to cover 
 such case. Opinion: The note is not nego- 
 tiable because of uncertainty as to the payee. 
 Where it is desirable to draw a note to a 
 number of payees and the blank form of the 
 note does not provide sufficient space for their 
 names, a special blank form w^ith sufficient 
 space should be provided. Vol. 5, p. 449, 
 Jan., 1913. 
 
 890. (Minn.) A customer offers for sale 
 a note in which the name of the payee is 
 missing. Is the note payable to bearer? 
 Opinion: A note wherein no payee is named 
 or indicated with reasonable certainty is in- 
 complete and not negotiable. But where the 
 note contains a blank for the name of the 
 payee which is unfilled, under the law mer- 
 chant the instrument was payable to bearer 
 and negotiable and carried impliedly author- 
 ity to a bona fide purchaser to fill the blank 
 and complete the instrument; but under the 
 Negotiable Instruments Act the blank must 
 be filled strictly in accordance with the au- 
 thority given and if the holder negotiates 
 such an instrument without authority, the 
 purchaser is put on inquiry and it is subject 
 to defenses in his hands. Vol. 11, p. 94, 
 Aug., 1918. See 960. 
 
 Certainty of place of payment 
 
 891. (Mass.) A check is drawn upon a 
 bank in Vermont "'payable if desired at the 
 Blank National Bank,' Boston." In view of 
 the two places of payment, negotiability is 
 questioned. Opinion: The negotiability of a 
 check drawn on one bank "payable if de- 
 
 nired at" another bank is uncertain. It de- 
 ])ends on whether the instrument is construed 
 to be drawn on two drawees in the alternative, 
 in which case it would be non-negotiable, or 
 whether on one drawee with two places of 
 jiaymcnt, in which case it would probably be 
 negotiable. Checks drawn "payable if de- 
 sired at" are prohil)ited in the New York 
 Clearing House. Vol. 5, p. 377, Dec, 1912. 
 
 Certainty as to time of payment 
 See 895, 989 
 
 892. (Cal.) A note contained the fol- 
 lowing provision : "Said interest payable 
 quarterly, and if not paid when it becomes 
 due, the principal and all accrued interest 
 shall at the election of the payee immediately 
 become due and payable." Opinion: In Cal- 
 ifornia this provision destroys the negotia- 
 bility of the note, but this is contrary to the 
 weight of authority. Vol. 7, p. 221, Oct., 
 1914. 
 
 893. (Md.) A note contains a clause, 
 "It is agreed that failure to pay any one note 
 at maturity shall, at the option of the holder, 
 mature all unpaid notes of this series." 
 Opinion: There is conflict of authority as to 
 the effect this clause has upon the negotia- 
 bility of the note, and it would not be safe for 
 a bank to treat it as negotiable unless located 
 in a jurisdiction where the law was favorable. 
 Vol. 5, p. 752, May, 1913. 
 
 Negotiability of certificate of stock 
 
 894. (N. J.) The holder of a stock cer- 
 tificate of a corporation properly indorsed in 
 blank transferred it to a bank as security for 
 a loan. The loan was unpaid and the cer- 
 tificate was presented by the bank to the cor- 
 poration, which refused to transfer or return 
 it, claiming that the same had been stolen. 
 Opinion: Except in states which have passed 
 the Uniform Transfer of Stock Act a certifi- 
 cate of stock, though properly indorsed in 
 blank, is not completely negotiable, and a pur- 
 chaser from a finder or thief takes no title 
 as against the true owner. Vol. 5, p. 248, 
 Oct., 1912. 
 
 895. (N. Y.) A note payable "on or be- 
 fore" a certain date is a negotiable instrument 
 and to hold the indorser must be presented 
 at maturity and the indorser notified. The 
 provision "on or before" gives the maker an 
 option to pay before maturitv and possiblv 
 save interest. Vol. 2, p. 187, Nov., 1909. 
 
 112
 
 NEGOTIABILITY 
 
 903 
 
 Effect of extension clause 
 See 772, 773, 896 et scq., 963 ct seq 
 
 896. (Iowa.) A form of note is sub- 
 mitted by an Iowa bank containing an exten- 
 sion clause as follows: "We further agree to 
 the extension of this note on payment of the 
 interest by either of us," and the question is 
 asked whether such clause affects its negotia- 
 bilit3\ Opinion: Presumably one of the 
 makers is principal and the others sureties, 
 but, however this may be, it provides a con- 
 sent by the makers that time of payment may 
 be extended on payment of interest. The 
 extension clause does not give the holder, of 
 his own motion, an absolute right to extend 
 the time of payment, but contemplates a 
 future agreement of extension between the 
 holder and some one of the makers. Under 
 the reasoning of the Supreme Court of Iowa 
 the clause would destroy the negotiability of 
 the note, because the time of payment is un- 
 certain to all of the makers save one. An- 
 other extension clause reads as follows : "The 
 indorsers and guarantors of this note consent 
 that time of payment may be extended with- 
 out notice thereof." This clause would not 
 destroy the negotiability of the note because 
 neither the maker nor the holder could of his 
 own motion postpone the time of payment. 
 Vol. 10, p. 655, March, 1918. 
 
 897. (Okla.) A note contains a clause, 
 "the makers and indorsers x x x hereby con- 
 sent that time of payment may be extended 
 without notice thereof." Negotiability of 
 such a note is questioned. Opinion: The de- 
 cisions in different states conflict upon the 
 question of negotiability. There is nothing 
 in the Negotiable Instruments Act specifically 
 relating to such a provision which settles this 
 conflict. The point is undecided in Okla- 
 homa. Vol. 3, p. G79, May, 1911. But see 
 900. 
 
 898. (S. Dak.) The following clause 
 appears on the face of a note: "the makers, 
 giuirantors, sureties and indorsers of tliis 
 note severally waive presentment for ])ay- 
 mcnt, protest, notice of non-])aymcnt, and 
 diligence, and agree that time of payment 
 may be extended without affecting their lia- 
 bility." Opinion: The waiver provisions do 
 not destroy the negotiability of the note, but 
 the decisions conflict as to the effect upon ne- 
 gotiability of the provision agreeing t« ex- 
 tension of time of payment without prejudice 
 to the holder. The point has not l)een de- 
 cided in South Dakota but cases liolding such 
 a note negotiable are supported by better 
 reason. Vol. 3, p. 467, Feb., 1911. 
 
 899. (Mo.) In Missouri the provision 
 in a promissory note that "the makers and in- 
 dorsers each waive demand, notice and pro- 
 test of this note, and severally agree that the 
 time may be extended without notice" does 
 not affect its negotiabilitv. Vol. 10, p. 780, 
 May, 1918. 
 
 900. (Okla.) A promissory note con- 
 taining clauses (1) waiving presentment, 
 (2) consenting to extension of time of pay- 
 ment without notice, (3) providing for pay- 
 ment of attorney's fees if not paid at matur- 
 ity, (4) authorizing confession of judgment 
 if not paid at maturity, and (5) authorizing 
 sale of collaterals if not paid at maturity, is 
 negotiable under the law of Oklahoma. Vol. 
 10, p. 781, May, 1918. 
 
 Instrument payable "in exchange" 
 
 901. (Va.) A bank is offered for dis- 
 count three notes payable at Richmond, Vir- 
 ginia "in New York Exchange," and ques- 
 tions whether this phrase makes the notes 
 non-negotiable. Opinion: It would be safer 
 for the bank to proceed on the theory that the 
 notes were non-negotiable, as the decisions 
 conflict upon the negotiabilitv of notes so pay- 
 able. Vol. 8, p. 608, Jan., "1916. See 315, 
 316, 1142. 
 
 Note reciting executory consideration 
 
 902. (Tenn.) A number of banks have 
 purchased notes, concerning whose negotia- 
 bility they are uncertain. The note contains 
 the following promise, "Please enter my name 
 for 110 weeks' subscription to (certain pub- 
 lications named), for which I promise to pay 
 to your order $5.50 six months from date. 
 Signed, John Smith." Opinion: Wiiore a 
 note recites that it is given for a considera- 
 tion to be performed in the future, a majority 
 of courts hold that such recital does not affect 
 negotiability nor prevent the indorsee from 
 enforcing free from defen.'jes. unless at the 
 time of acquiring the note he lias knowledge 
 of the l)reach of the executory agreement. 
 The courts in a few states iiohl. to the con- 
 trary, that tiie indorsee takes sul)jeet to the 
 performance of the cxccutnrv ( misideralion. 
 Vol. 10, p. 314, Oct., 1917. 
 
 Note retaining lien 
 
 903. (Ark.) Negotiability of the follow- 
 ing note is questioned : "This note is secured 
 by a vendor's lien retained on the (description 
 of real estate) 
 
 113
 
 001 
 
 J)|(;kst of leual oi'INIOxs 
 
 Ian 1in7. 
 
 On or beloro after 
 
 date I promise to pay to the order of 
 
 $500.00 Five Hundred 
 
 and no/100 Dollars with interest from date 
 
 at the rate of per cent, nntil i)aid. 
 
 \^ilue received. 
 
 Si<j^ned " 
 
 Opinion: In most Jurisdictions, including Ar- 
 kansas, a provision in a note reserving title 
 or retaining lien upon the property for which 
 the note is given, until ])ayment, does not de- 
 stroy negotiability. But a provision that the 
 note is subject to a certain deed would make 
 the instrument non-negotiable. Vol. 9, p. 
 823, April, 1917. 
 
 Effect of waiver of protest and exemptions 
 
 See 899, 900, 978 
 
 904. (La.) A note containing a clause 
 (1) waiving presentment, (8) waiving ex- 
 emptions and homesteads, and (3) providing 
 for costs of collection and attorney's fees, if 
 not paid at maturity, is a valid obligation and 
 is negotiable under the Negotiable Instru- 
 ments Law. Where the note contains a 
 clause giving '"consent that time of payment 
 may be extended without notice," the deci- 
 sions of a number of states conflict as to 
 whether or not it destroys negotiability. Vol. 
 5, p. 173, Sept., 1912. 
 
 Warehouse receipts 
 
 905. (S. Dak.) The agent of an ele- 
 vator company borrowed money upon a forged 
 elevator storage ticket, which was issued with- 
 out authority by him in the name of the 
 company to a fictitious person and indorsed 
 by the same name. The agent also indorsed 
 tiie ticket in his own name. Opinion: The 
 elevator company is not liable to the pur- 
 chaser. The ticket is not negotiable and is 
 not transferable as a bearer instrument be- 
 cause the supposed goods are made deliverable 
 to a fictitious person. The purchaser required 
 no title as in case of a negotiable 
 instrument, and was put in inquiry in any 
 event because of negotiation by the issuing 
 agent. Vol. 6, p. 819, June, 1914. 
 
 Warrant drawn for municipal debt 
 
 906. (N. M.) Tlie general rule is that 
 warrants, drafts or orders drawn for payment 
 of municii)al debts by one i)ublic ollice on an- 
 other are not negotiable instruments, and this 
 class of instruments includes school district 
 warrants. Vol. G, p. 507, Jan., 1914. See 
 1140. 
 
 Words affecting negotiability 
 See 277, 324, 899, 1289 
 
 907. (Minn.) A note contained the pro- 
 vision : "this note is given for six drain heads 
 to be delivered in good condition at (name of 
 place)." The note was negotiated to a pur- 
 chaser for value. The drain heads were never 
 delivered. Opinion: The holder can enforce 
 against the maker, because the note is nego- 
 tiable. The provision above quoted is a 
 statement of the transaction which gives rise 
 to the instrument and the fact that it is an 
 executory contract which may never be per- 
 formed does not make the promise to pay 
 conditional, nor destrov negotiabilitv. Vol. 
 7, p. 222, Oct., 1914. 
 
 908. (Okla.) A promissory note to pav 
 $5,000 had the following clause added, "The 
 foregoing note is made and delivered in pur- 
 suance of the escrow agreement between John 
 Smith and John Brown, dated the 31st day 
 of May, 1917." Does the clause affect the ne- 
 gotiability of the instrument? Opinion: A 
 note promising to pay the amount "in pur- 
 suance of escrow agreement" between A and 
 B would probably be held negotiable on the 
 ground that the quoted phrase was a mere 
 statement of the transaction giving rise to the 
 instrument rather than one making payment 
 subject to the terms of the escrow agreement. 
 Yoi. 10, p. 780, May, 1918. 
 
 909. (S. Dak.) The words "duplicate 
 unpaid" do not affect the negotiability of a 
 draft but they constitute notice to the pur- 
 chaser of the existence of a second draft, pay- 
 ment of which would discharge the draft he is 
 buying. Vol. 4, p. 491, Feb..''l912. See 827. 
 
 NOTARIES 
 
 The law advocated by the American Bankers 
 Association relating to competency of bank and 
 corporation notaries has lieen passed either in 
 full or with modifications in the following 
 states: Delaware, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, ;Min- 
 nesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New 
 Jersey, New York, (examine revised code of North 
 
 Dakota, Sec. 5593) South Dakota, Vermont, 
 Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming. 
 
 The law stated in full is as follows: "It shall 
 be lawful for any notary public who is a stock- 
 holder, director, officer or employe of a l)ank or 
 other corporation to take the acknowledgment 
 of any party to any written instrument executed 
 
 114
 
 NOTARIES 
 
 923 
 
 to or by such corporation or to administer an 
 oath to any other stockholder, director, officer, 
 employe or agent of such corporation, or to pro- 
 test for non-acceptance or non-payment bills of 
 exchange, drafts, checks, notes and other nego- 
 tiable instruments which may l)e owned or held 
 for collection In' such corporation: Provided, it 
 shall be luihiwful for any notary public to take 
 the acknowledgment of an instrument by or to 
 a bank or other corporation of which he is a 
 stockholder, director, officer, or employe, where 
 such notary is a party to such instrument, either 
 individually or as a representative of such cor- 
 l)oration, or to protest any negotiable instrument 
 owned or lield for collection Ijy such corporation, 
 where such notary is individually a party to 
 such instrument." 
 
 Acknowledgment by party in interest 
 
 910. (Miss.) A Mayor of a city, author- 
 ized to take acknowledgments, is disqiialitied 
 to take the acknowledgment of the grantor to 
 a deed of trust in which he is named as 
 trustee. Vol. 9, p. 824, April, 1917. 
 
 Acknowledgment over telephone 
 
 911. (Wash.) Opinion that acknowl- 
 edgment of mortgage or other instrument 
 taken by notary over telephone would be 
 invalid as law requires personal (physical) 
 appearance of person making acknowledg- 
 ment. Vol. 7, p. 686, March, 1915. 
 
 912. (W. V.) An acknowledgment 
 taken by a notary over the telephone where 
 the statute requires a certificate that the per- 
 son "personally appeared" before the notary 
 has been held invalid in several states; but 
 in California its validity has been upheld in 
 the absence of fraud, duress or mistake. 
 Question not decided in West Virginia. Vol. 
 9, p. 659, Feb., 1917. 
 
 Notary's fee in Alabama 
 
 913. (Ala.) A fee of $5.11 charged by 
 a notary in Alabama for protesting a check is 
 excessive and is in violation of Section 5174 
 of the Alabama Code. Vol. 10, p. 852, June, 
 1918. 
 
 Competency of bank officers, directors, 
 stockholders and employees as notaries 
 
 914. (Ala.) In Alabama, notary who is 
 stockholder of mortgagee hank is incompetent 
 to take acknowledgment of mortgage, but 
 where he is an officer or employee, not a 
 stockholder, he is competent. Question of 
 notary's competency to protest paper for the 
 bank undecided. Vol. 4, p. 615, April, 1912. 
 
 915. (Cal.) A notary public who is as- 
 sistant cashier and stockholder of a bank is 
 not, under the law of California, disqualified 
 to take the acknowledgment of the mort- 
 gagors to a mortgage executed to the bank. 
 Vol. 11, p. 441, Feb., 1919. 
 
 916. (Cal.) In California, notary who 
 is stockholder is incompetent to take acknowl- 
 edgments of instrument's running to the 
 bank, although competent to acknowledge in- 
 struments executed by the Ijank. But may 
 acknowledge paper running to the bank where 
 he is an otlicer but not a stockholder. Vol. 4, 
 p. 551, March, 1913. 
 
 XoTE: In 1914, Supreme Court of California 
 held notary competent, thougii stockholder, to 
 take acknowledgments of instruments running 
 to bank. First Nat. Bank r. Merrill, i:J'J Pac 
 
 lOGG. 
 
 917. (Cal.) An assistant cashier of a 
 national bank in California is competent, as 
 notary, to protest i)aper for the bank, where 
 he is not a stockholder of the institution. Vol. 
 4, p. 489, Feb., 1912. 
 
 Kote: See previous note. 
 
 918. (Colo.) A notary in Colorado is 
 competent to take acknowledgment of instru- 
 ments running to a bank, although he is a 
 stockholder thereof. Vol. 8, p. 42. Julv. 
 1915. 
 
 919. (Colo.) ]\rany states, where law 
 unchanged by statute, hold stockholder of 
 bank disqualified to act as notary in taking 
 acknowledgments of instruments running to 
 bank. Vol. 7, p. 688, March, 1915. 
 
 920. (Idaho.) In Idaho a notary who is 
 an otlicer but not a stockholder is probably 
 competent to take acknowledgments of instru- 
 ments running to his bank. Vol. 4, p. 683, 
 May, 1912. 
 
 921. (Idaho.) Stockholder of bank gen- 
 erally held by courts disqualified, as notary, 
 to take acknowledgments of instruments run- 
 ning to bank. In Idaho where question not 
 decided, safer to follow this rule. Vol. 4, p. 
 428, Jan., 1912. 
 
 922. (111.) Opinion that notary of bank 
 in Illinois who is an officer of the bank, but 
 has no stock interest therein, is competent to 
 protest paper owned bv the bank. Vol. 7, 
 p. 166, Sept., 1914. 
 
 923. (111.) By statute in Illinois, a no- 
 tary who is a stockholder or officer of a bank 
 is competent to take acknowledgments of in- 
 struments relating to real estate to which the 
 bank is a party. Vol. 4, p. 683, May, 1912. 
 
 115
 
 924 
 
 DIGEST OF LEGAL OriNJONS 
 
 XoTE: Sep Miixwcll r. Lincoln Builditif; & Loan 
 Assn., 210 III. f^f) lioldinp statute Milld and con- 
 stitutional. Statute, liowcvcr, covers (jiily deeds 
 and niortgaffes of real estate. It cliangca law as 
 held in Og(len Buildinj^ & Loan Assn. v. Meuscli, 
 11X5 111. 554 which held that acknowledgment of a 
 mortgage taken before a notary who is stock- 
 holder of the mortgagee is invalid In-cause of the 
 notary's pecuniary interest. The statute does not 
 cover chattel mortgages and tlie r\ile as to the 
 competency of notary-stockholder to take ack- 
 nowledgment of chattel mortgage to l)ank re- 
 mains uncertain. 
 
 924. (111.) In Illinois, question whether 
 notary who is partner of private bank compe- 
 tent to protest checks drawn on bank not de- 
 cided and uncertain. Vol. 4, p. 616, April, 
 1912. 
 
 925. (111.) In the absence of judicial de- 
 cision in Illinois a notary-stockholder of a 
 bank is competent to protest paper held by the 
 bank as collection agent, and, wiien held by 
 the bank as owner, it is probable that such 
 notary is likewise competent to protest. Vol. 
 4, p. 92, Aug., 1911. 
 
 926. (111.) Under law of Illinois, stock- 
 holder of corporation is disqualified, as 
 notary, to tack acknowledgments of deeds 
 running to the corj^oration — enactment of 
 remedial legislation suggested. Vol. 2, p. 23, 
 July, 1909. 
 
 Note: Law changed. See note imder 923. 
 
 927. (Ind.) By statute in Indiana a no- 
 tary public who is an officer or employee of a 
 bank or trust company cannot act as notary 
 in the business of the bank. Vol. 7, p. 104, 
 Aug., 1914. 
 
 928. (Ind.) Under Indiana statute, no- 
 tary who is officer of bank is prohibited from 
 protesting paper running to bank or other- 
 wise acting as notary in the business of the 
 institution. Vol. 4, p. 550, March, 1912. 
 
 929. (Iowa.) In Iowa officer of a bank 
 not a stockholder is competent to take ac- 
 knowledgments of instruments whether exe- 
 cuted by or running to the bank. Vol. 7, p. 
 779, April, 1915. 
 
 930. (Iowa.) Under decisions in Iowa, 
 stockholder of bank is incompetent, as notary, 
 to take acknowledgments of instruments run- 
 ning to bank, but if notary is officer and not 
 stockholder, he is not disqualified. Vol. 7, p. 
 166, Sept., 1914. 
 
 931. (Kan.) In Kansas, cashier and 
 stockholder of Xational Bank is competent 
 as notary to take acknowledgments of instru- 
 ments running to the bank. Taking fee as 
 
 notary would not violate Federal Reserve Act. 
 \'ol. 7, p. 1002, June, 1915. 
 
 932. (Kan.) In Kansas the statute of 
 1905 authorizes a notary-stockholder to take 
 acknowledgments of instruments executed to 
 his bank except "when acting himself in be- 
 Iialf of the corf)oration." Where a notary 
 draws up a mortgage for })ank, and his name 
 is not mentioned in the papers, it seems un- 
 reasonable to hold that he is acting himself 
 in behalf of the bank. The Kansas statute 
 does not require an affidavit of ownership 
 upon the original filing of a chattel mortgage, 
 but such affidavit is necessary for a renewal. 
 Vol. 4, p. 616, April, 1912. 
 
 933. (Kan.) In Kansas a notary, 
 though a stockholder, officer or employee of 
 a bank, is competent to take acknowledgments 
 of instruments executed to and by such bank, 
 except where he acts for himself in behalf of 
 such bank. Vol. 4, p. 489, Feb., 1912. 
 
 934. (Kan.) In Kansas a notary who is 
 an officer and stockholder of a bank is com- 
 petent to protest the bank's paper as well as 
 take acknowledgments of real estate mort- 
 gages to the bank, except where he himself 
 acts in behalf of the ))ank in taking the mort- 
 gage. Vol. 4, p. 308, Nov., 1911. 
 
 935. (La.) Notary who is stockholder 
 probably incompetent to take acknowledg- 
 ments of instruments running to the bank, 
 although disqualification may not extend to 
 protests. Officer, not a stockholder, is com- 
 petent. Vol. 5, p. 21, July, 1912. 
 
 936. (La.) A notary when a stockholder 
 of a bank is generally held incompetent to 
 take acknowlegments of instruments running 
 to the bank. The law is uncertain as to com- 
 petency to protest paper. These questions 
 have not been passed upon in Louisiana. Vol. 
 2, p. 74, Aug., 1909. 
 
 937. (Minn.) In Minnesota a notary 
 who is a stockholder and officer of a bank is 
 competent to take acknowledgments and make 
 protests of paper in which the bank is inter- 
 ested. Vol. 4, p. 683, May, 1912. 
 
 938. (Miss.) Xotary who is stockholder 
 of bank probably incompetent, in Mississippi, 
 to take acknowledgment of deed of trust 
 wherein bank is beneficiary, but not incom- 
 petent wli£re bank is grantor of a deed. In 
 case where notary is officer, but has no stock 
 interest, competencv probably not affected. 
 Vol. 6, p. 760, May.'l914. 
 
 939. (Miss.) In Mississippi a notary is 
 competent to protest checks drawn on the 
 
 116
 
 NOTAEIES 
 
 955 
 
 bank of which he is an officer and stockholder. 
 But probably is incompetent to acknowledge 
 instruments running to the bank. Vol. 4, p. 
 552, March, 1912. 
 
 940. (Miss.) In Mississippi a notary 
 who is a stockholder of a bank is presumably 
 incompetent to take the acknowledgment 
 of an instrument running to the bank. Such 
 notary would be competent to make protests 
 of instruments held by the bank for collec- 
 tion, but when held by the bank as owner the 
 question of competency is unsettled. Vol. 4, 
 p. 428, Jan., 1912. 
 
 941. (Mo.) In Missouri a notary who 
 is a stockholder would probably be held in- 
 competent to take acknowledgments of instru- 
 ments running to his bank. Vol. 4, p. 552, 
 March, 1912. 
 
 942. (Mo.) Under the existing condi- 
 tion of the law in Missouri, a bank would be 
 safe in using its notary for protests and ac- 
 knowledgments, where such notary is a non- 
 stockholding officer, but not when he is a 
 stockholder. Vol. 3, p. 202, Oct., 1910. 
 
 943. (Mont.) A statute in Montana 
 qualifies notaries who are stockholders of 
 banks to take acknowledgments and make 
 protests of paper in which the bank is inter- 
 ested. Vol. 4, p. 154, Sept., 1911. 
 
 944. (Neb.) Notary who is stockholder 
 not competent to take acknowledgments of in- 
 struments running to the bank. But officer 
 who is not stockholder is competent. A^ol. 5, 
 p. 24, July, 1912. 
 
 945. (N, H.) In the absence of any es- 
 tablished rule in New Hampshire, a notary, 
 who is a director of a bank, is competent to 
 protest paper held by the bank for collection, 
 but when the paper is owned by the bank tlie 
 question is unsettled. Vol. 4, p. 376, Dec, 
 1911. 
 
 946. (N. J.) In New Jersey a Commis- 
 sioner of Deeds is competent to take the ac- 
 knowledgment to a mortgage to a l)ank of 
 which he is cashier, director and stockholder. 
 Vol. 4, p. fi84. May, 1912. 
 
 947. (N. C.) In North Carolina, no- 
 tary who is an officer of a bank, l)ut not a 
 stockholder, is competent to take acknowl- 
 edgments of instruments running to a bank. 
 If officer is a stockholder he is discjualified. 
 Vol. 7, p. 899, May, 1915. 
 
 948. (N. Dak.) A statute in North Da- 
 kota expressly provides that the acknowledg- 
 ment of an instrument to which a corporation 
 
 may be a party before a notary or other au- 
 thorized official is valid, though such notary 
 be an officer, director, employee or stock- 
 holder of such corporation. Vol, 2, p. 108, 
 Sept., 1909. 
 
 949. (Ohio.) A statute in Ohio prohib- 
 iting a director, officer or clerk of a bank from 
 acting as a notary in any matter in which the 
 bank "is in any way interested" does not dis- 
 qualify a stockholder holding no official rela- 
 tion from taking acknowledgments or making 
 protests, but a director who is a notary can- 
 not protest paper owned by the bank. Whether 
 a director-notary can protest paper held for 
 collection is doubtful. Vol. 8, p. CIO, Jan., 
 191G. 
 
 950. (Okla.) In Oklahoma a notary is 
 prol)ably competent to acknowledge instru- 
 ments to and from a bank or to protest the 
 bank's paper, although a stockholder of such 
 bank or holding other official relation. Vol. 
 4, p. 683, May, 1912. 
 
 951. (Pa.) Opinion: Under the Act of 
 1909 a bank clerk would be competent, as 
 notar)', to take acknowledgments of instru- 
 ments executed by or running to the bank. 
 The competency of a stockholder to take ac- 
 knowledgments, as notary, of instnnuents 
 running to the bank would depend on whether 
 he is disqualified by his stock interest, which 
 has not been decidecj in Pennsylvania. A 
 stockholder other than a director would be 
 competent to make protests. Vol. 4, p. 758, 
 June, 1912. 
 
 952. (Pa.) A Pennsylvania statute pro- 
 hibits directors of banks from acting as no- 
 tary for the bank. Opinion that this statute 
 disqualifies a notary who is a director of a 
 national bank from protesting a check for 
 his own bank. Vol. 4, p. 307, Nov., 1911. 
 
 953. (S. Dak.) In South Dakota no- 
 tary who is stockhohltr and director is com- 
 petent to take acknowledgement of mortgage 
 executed to bank. Vol. 7, p. 1001, June. 
 1915. 
 
 954. (Tenn.) The courts of Tennessee 
 
 disapprove acknowledgments of instrument,*? 
 running to bank by a notary who is a stock- 
 holder of bank, but hold that such acknowl- 
 edgments arc not void but merely voidable 
 upon proof of fraud, oppression or other 
 ground for invalidation. Vol. 2, p. 107, 
 Sept., 1909. 
 
 955. (Wash.) In Washington notary 
 public who is stockholder of corporation has 
 been held competent to take acknowledgment' 
 
 117
 
 950 
 
 DKIKST OF LEGAL OPINIONS 
 
 of mortgages running to his institution. 
 rroI)ably also coni])otent to protest bank's 
 paper. "A'oI. 4, p. 428, Jan., 1912. 
 
 956. (W. Va.) In absence of judicial 
 decision a notary in West Virginia wlio is a 
 stockholder and director is competent to pro- 
 test paper held by the bank for collection. 
 When held by the bank as owner the question 
 is uncertain. Vol. 4, p. 154, Sept., 1911. 
 
 957. (Wis.) Cashier of Wisconsin bank 
 who is notary but not a stockholder, compe- 
 tent to take acknowledgments of instruments 
 running to the bank. If casiliier also a 
 stockholder, this fact would probably disqual- 
 ify him. Vol. 7, p. 900, May, 1915. 
 
 Relationship to mortgagee 
 
 958. (Neb.) B and his wife executed a 
 mortgage to A. A's brother having no pe- 
 
 cuniary interest in the transaction took the 
 acknowledgments as notary public. Opinion: 
 The relationship of the notary to the mort- 
 gagee did not disqualify the notary and the 
 acknowledgment is valid. Vol. 8, p. 418, 
 Nov., 1915. 
 
 Form of acknowledgment 
 
 959. (Cal.) A notary public in making 
 out an acknowledgment to a deed used the 
 words "and has duly acknowledged to me" 
 etc., instead of "and he duly acknowledged to 
 me" etc. Opinion: Where the statute, as in 
 the case in California requires that a certifi- 
 cate of acknowledgment must be substantial- 
 ly in a form therein provided, the certificate 
 will be valid though not in the precise lan- 
 guage of the statute if it substantially com- 
 plies therewith. Vol. 7, p. 102, Aug., 1914. 
 
 NOTES 
 
 Blank space filled in "in accordance 
 with authority" 
 
 960. (W. Va.) B and C signed a note 
 in blank with A as principal maker, author- 
 izing A to fill in the note for $100. A, in 
 violation of the agreement, borrowed $2,500 
 from a bank upon the note, and the bank fills 
 in that amount. Upon default of A, the 
 bank seeks to recover from B and C, who 
 claim their liability is only for $100. Opin- 
 ion: The bank was put on inquiry as to the 
 extent of the authority of A and cannot re- 
 cover from the accommodation makers the 
 full face value of the note, but only the 
 amount authorized. Section 14 of the Nego- 
 tiable Instruments Act provides that the 
 blank must be filled up "strictly in accordance 
 with the authority given," and when the bank 
 received the note in that condition, it was 
 put on notice that it must proceed at its 
 peril. A^ol. 11, p. 437, Feb., 1919. See 890. 
 
 Cashier buying his own note for bank 
 
 961. (Tenn.) The cashier of a bank 
 gave his ow^n two year note for a personal in- 
 debtedness to John Doe, and then used the 
 bank's funds to buy the note, which con- 
 tained a guaranty of payment by John Doe. 
 The cashier died almost six years after the 
 maturity of the note, which had never been 
 paid, and the bank seeks to hold Doe liable. 
 Opinion: John Doe would be held liable to 
 the bank on his guaranty of payment, which 
 right could be enforced within six years 
 
 after the date of maturity of the note. Upon 
 the question whether Doe could be held upon 
 the note as participant in a breach of trust, 
 it is likely that the discount of the note by 
 the bank for Doe with his personal guaranty 
 thereon, especially as Doe was an innocent 
 party free from actual fault, would be held a 
 sufficiently legitimate transaction to make 
 him not chargeable as constructive trustee. 
 Vol. 6, p. 509, Jan., 1914. 
 
 Days of grace abolished 
 
 962. (Miss.) The Negotiable Instru- 
 ments Act of Mississippi, which abolished the 
 three daj's of grace formerly allowed, would 
 not affect the terms of a contract entered into 
 liefore the Act took effect. A note executed 
 before but not due until after the Act became 
 operative would carry three days of grace in 
 time of payment. Vol. 9, p. 145, Aug., 1916. 
 
 Extension of time of payment 
 
 See 772, 773, 896 et seq. 1005 
 
 963. (111.) A note contained the follow- 
 ing words : "The joint signers agree to waive 
 any extension of time without notice." Opin- 
 ion: Such clause constitutes an express con- 
 sent by the surety-makers to the extension. 
 But even though consent were not given by 
 the surety-makers they are primarily liable 
 under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and 
 ar6 not released bv the extension. Vol. 9, 
 p. 48, July, 1916. " 
 
 118
 
 NOTES 
 
 970 
 
 964. (N. Y.) A bank purchased a note 
 made by Smith, payable to Jones's wife, in- 
 dorsed both by her and Jones. At maturity 
 it is protested for non-payment and the in- 
 dorsers regularly notified. Two years later 
 Jones agrees with the holder to make weekly 
 payments of $10 each. The bank asks if 
 agreement will affect the wife's liability. 
 Opinion: An agreement by the holder of a 
 protested note with the last indorser to ac- 
 cept payment by weekly installments does not 
 discharge a prior indorser from liability. Had 
 the agreement been made l)y the liolder 
 with the maker the wife would have been re- 
 leased. Vol. 10, p. 464, Dec, 1917. 
 
 965. (Okla.) A note contains a waiver 
 of protest and extension clause providing that 
 "after maturity, the time of payment may be 
 extended" etc., so worded to remove any ques- 
 tion of negotiability of note. The question 
 arises whether, if a bank extends the note be- 
 fore maturity, the other makers and indorsers 
 would be released. Opinion : The consent to 
 extension only applies when made after ma- 
 turity, and extension by the holder to the 
 principal debtor before maturity would re- 
 lease the sureties, except those who signed on 
 the face as makers. Vol. 8, p. 420, Xov., 
 1915. 
 
 966. (Okla.) A's note for $1,000 was 
 indorsed by B and C who guaranteed pay- 
 ment. The holder extended the time of 
 payment on the note in consideration for A's 
 payment of 30 days' interest in advance. 
 Opinion: The extension of the time of pay- 
 ment by the holder without the consent of 
 B and C released them from liability. If 
 B and C had signed the note as surety-makers 
 they would not have been released from liabil- 
 itv under the Xegotial)le Instruments Law. 
 Vol. 4, p. 9:3, Aug., 1911. 
 
 967. (Tenn.) A's note in payment of a 
 loan was signed on its face by B and C. 
 There was no waiver of demand and protest. 
 After maturity A upon a forged order pur- 
 porting to be signed by B and C obtained an 
 extension of the time of payment, wliich was 
 duly granted by the holder. B and C con- 
 test liability because as indorsors they were 
 discharged for failure to protest the note, and 
 because of the extension agreement given 
 without their consent. Opinion: B and C 
 signed as makers and were not entitled to 
 protest, and under the Xegotiable Instru- 
 ments Act the surety-makers of a note are 
 primarily liable and are not discharged l)y 
 
 the extension of the time of payment granted 
 to the principal maker without their consent. 
 \o\. 9, p. 147, Aug., 191G. 
 
 968. (Tenn.) A joint and .several note 
 of *1.jO was executed by two makers, one of 
 whom was a surety. $T5 was paid on the 
 note after maturity, in consideration of which 
 an extension of time was given the principal 
 maker to pay the balance. The priucijial 
 maker did not pay as agreed and became in- 
 solvent. Opinion: The surety was not re- 
 leased by such extension of time because (1) 
 the agreement was not binding, being with- 
 out valid consideration, and even if other- 
 wise, (2) under the Xegotiable Instrument- 
 Act a surety-maker is not discharged by tiie 
 extension given the principal maker witiiout 
 his consent. The Statute of Limitations 
 (five years in Kentucky, where the note was 
 made) begins to run from the date of nia- 
 turitv of the note. Vol. 7, p. 103, Aug., 
 1914'. 
 
 Enforcement of note by holder 
 
 969. (La.) X gives his note i<>r 
 •S?00 to Bank A for borrowed money; 
 Bank A indorses same and pledges to Bank B 
 as collateral for a note. Afterwards X pays 
 Bank A $100 on the note and takes cashier's 
 receipt for same. Bank .\ does not advise 
 Bank B to make proper credit on note. Bank 
 A becomes insolvent. Opinion: Assuming 
 the note was transferred by Bank A to Bank 
 B before maturity, the paynjent l)y the maker 
 to Bank A was inelTective against Bank B, 
 which can recover the full amount of the note 
 from the maker, or so much thereof as is nec- 
 essary to satisfy the lien. Vol. 8. p. 147, 
 Aug." 1915. 
 
 970. (Md.) A bank discounted for its 
 customer three notes, the proeeetis of which 
 were credited to the indorser's account. At 
 maturity of the notes payment was refused by 
 tiie makers, who claimed fraud. The in- 
 dorser cliecked out the credit he had received 
 from the bank, hut has a de|>osit with the 
 hank sutlicient to meet the notes. Opinion: 
 Tlie bank at maturity of the notes can enforce 
 payment of the nuikers free from the defen.se 
 of fraud in procurement, provided the pro- 
 ceeds credited to the indorser were withdrawn 
 prior to maturity. The bank is not obliged 
 to apply a sutlicient deposit of the indorser in 
 ."Satisfaction of the notes, in preference to 
 suing the makers. Vol. 8, p. 706, Feb., 1910. 
 
 110
 
 971 
 
 DIGEST OF LEGAL OPINIONS 
 
 971. (Mich.) A gave B in part pay- 
 ment fur real estate two time notes bearing 
 interest at the rate of six per cent. On A's 
 default at maturity B wrote A that he would 
 charge 7 per cent., because the payments were 
 not met when due. A did not respond to 
 the letter. B seeks to enforce the payment 
 of seven per cent, interest, and until such 
 payment refuses to give A a deed. The 
 agreement was that deed should be delivered 
 when notes were paid. Opinion: B has no 
 right to enforce payment of seven per cent, 
 interest, because there was no binding agree- 
 u\Qi\t between A and B changing the original 
 contract, and has no right to refuse deed 
 when balance of principal and six per cent, 
 interest are tendered. Under the laws of 
 Michigan it is lawful to contract for a seven 
 per cent. rate. Vol. 4, p. 375, Dec, 1911. 
 
 972. (Miss.) The maker and indorser 
 of a note having become liable thereon, the 
 holder desires to know which to sue first to 
 recover the money. Opinion: Under the law 
 merchant, the holder of an indorsed instru- 
 ment upon which the indorser has been duly 
 charged, can sue both maker and indorser in 
 separate actions at the same time or either, at 
 his election, but cannot join both in the same 
 action in the absence of statutes authorizing 
 such joinder, which have been passed in many 
 states. Negotiable Instruments Act does not 
 alter the rules as to remedy "by suit. The 
 Code of Mississippi denies the right of sep- 
 arate action against indorser where the maker 
 is a resident of the state and requires joinder 
 of maker and indorser in the same action. 
 Vol. 10, p. 122, Aug., 1917. 
 
 Governed by law of place where payable 
 
 973. (111.) Where a note is made in one 
 state or jurisdiction and is payable in another, 
 the law of the place where payable governs the 
 instrument. Vol. 6, p. 213,' Sept., 1913. 
 
 Note with impossible date 
 
 974. (Ga.) A bank receives for collec- 
 tion a note reading "February 30th after date 
 I promise to pay." The collecting bank in- 
 quires as to the liability of the maker, and 
 whether if collection is made and the maker 
 later discovers the error in date and contends 
 that it was collected illegally, the collecting 
 bank would be liable. Opinion: The note is 
 not illegal or void, but is payable on the near- 
 est date of the same month, namely February 
 28. Vol. 1, p. 407, May, 1909. 
 
 Joint and several notes 
 Sec 092 
 
 975. (Ga.) At common law, a note 
 drawn *'We promise," etc., signed by two or 
 more is joint only, but "1" promise, so signed, 
 is joint and several. By statute in some 
 states a joint note in form is made joint and 
 several. In absence of statute, bank desiring 
 joint and several note should have it read 
 "We or either of us," or "We jointly and 
 severally" promise. Vol. 6, p. 215, Sept., 
 1913. 
 
 976. (111.) Note reading "I" promise 
 to pay, signed by two or more makers, is joint 
 and several under the law merchant and Ne- 
 gotiable Instruments Law and is a better form 
 from the standpoint of the holder than one 
 reading "we" promise to pay, which at com- 
 mon law is a joint note only. Vol. 5, p. 
 109, Aug., 1912. 
 
 977. (W. Va.) A note written "We 
 promise to pay" is joint only, in the absence 
 of a statute making it joint and several and 
 all the makers must be joined in an action 
 thereon, but each maker is liable for the full 
 amount. Vol. 6, p. 756, May, 1914. 
 
 Judgment notes 
 
 978. (Del.) A note contains a clause 
 confessing judgment if payment is not made 
 at maturity, and an express waiver of de- 
 mand, protest and notice embodied in the in- 
 strument itself. Opinion: The note is valid 
 and negotiable under the Negotiable Instru- 
 ments Law, and neither demand nor notice is 
 necessarv to hold indorsers. Vol. 4, p. 493, 
 Feb., 1912. 
 
 979. (Pa.) A form of note, submitted 
 on the question of negotiability, contains a 
 stipulation in addition to the promise to pay, 
 that the maker will "confess judgment for 
 the above sura with 5 per cent, added for col- 
 lection fees." Opinion: Where a promissory 
 note contains a clause authorizing confession 
 of judgment without the restriction "if not 
 paid at maturity" so that thereunder judg- 
 ment may be entered at any time, negotiabil- 
 ity of the note is destroyed. The Negotiable 
 Instruments Act declares that negotiability 
 is not affected by a provision which author- 
 izes confession of judgment if the instrument 
 is not paid at maturity and a note conforming 
 to this provision would be negotiable. Vol. 
 11, p. 669, June, 1919. 
 
 980. (Pa.) A, who borrowed $5,000 
 from a bank, executed a promissory note for 
 
 120
 
 NOTES 
 
 [989 
 
 $5,000 and a judgment note for a like sum. 
 After he had paid $3,000, he requested a new 
 loan of $3,000. The bank questions the ad- 
 visability of taking a new judgment note or 
 of permitting the old judgment note to cover 
 the old and new debts. Opinion: The old 
 judgment note would not be enforceable for 
 the amount of the new loan, and a new judg- 
 ment note should be taken. Vol. 9, p. 241, 
 Sept., 1916. 
 
 981. (Pa.) A promissory note contains 
 a clause empowering any attorney of record 
 "to appear for and confess judgment for the 
 above sum, with or without declaration, with 
 costs of suit, release of errors, without stay of 
 execution.^' Opinion: The provision would 
 destroy negotiability of the note, as there- 
 under judgment could be entered up before 
 maturity. Such notes were held non-nego- 
 tiable in Pennsylvania before the Negotiable 
 Instruments Act, and that act makes the note 
 negotiable only where the clause authorizes 
 confession of judgment "if the instrument be 
 not paid at maturitv." Vol. 7, p. 895, Mav, 
 1915. 
 
 982. (Pa.) A clause in a note authoriz- 
 ing confession of judgment "at any time" de- 
 stroys its negotiability. A surety consenting 
 to the entry of judgment prior to maturity is 
 not discharged by such entry. Vol. 7, p. 306, 
 Nov., 1914. 
 
 983. (Pa.) When a note contains a 
 judgment clause constituting an immediate 
 confession of judgment, upon which judg- 
 ment could be entered before maturity, it is 
 non-negotiable, both under decisions in Penn- 
 sylvania and under the Negotiable Instru- 
 ments Act. Vol. 4, p. 374, Dec, 1911. 
 
 984. (Pa.) A and B borrowed $1,000 
 from S, giving therefor a note containing 
 power to confess judgment, a seal being op- 
 posite their signatures as makers. C signed 
 tlie note for acconnnodation only and no 
 seal follows his name. A and B liavo as- 
 signed and C contends that he cannot be held 
 because his signature was not under seal. 
 Opinion: The validity of a judgment note is 
 not affected bv the fact that it is not given 
 under seal. Vol. 4, p. 156, Sept., 1911. 
 
 Liability of surety 
 
 985. (Tex.) A signed a {jroniissory note 
 in favor of a bank, whicli discounted it for 
 him. The understanding witli A was that B 
 would also sign as surety, but B was not pres- 
 ent at tlie time. Later B did sign as surety. 
 
 On A's failure to pay, payment is sought to 
 be enforced against B. Opinion: B's signa- 
 ture is without consideration and not binding 
 unless made in pursuance of a promise made 
 in advance of discount. Vol. 8, p. 145, Aug., 
 1915. See 67, 68, 69, TOO. t»82. 
 
 Maturity of notes 
 
 986. (Miss.) The rule of the law mer- 
 chant is that the term "month" in a bill or 
 note means a calendar and not a lunar month. 
 A note dated January 31st payable in one 
 month, fixed, after date, matures on Febru- 
 ary 28. The common law rule is tiiat when 
 the date of maturity falls on a Sunday or hol- 
 iday it is pavable on the next succeeding bus- 
 iness day, but if the instrument carries grace, 
 it must be presented on the business day pre- 
 ceding. The due date of holiday maturing 
 paper is now quite generally regulated bv 
 statute. Vol. 1, p. 297, Feb., 1909. 
 
 987. (Neb.) Under the law merchant 
 and the Negotiable Instruments Act, in com- 
 puting the time an instrument lias to run, the 
 day of the date is excluded and the day of the 
 payment is included. A note dated January 
 1, 1915, given for one vear, i< pavable Jan- 
 uary 1, 1916, not December 31, 1915. Vol. 
 6, p. 759, May, 1914. 
 
 988. (N. Y.) A note dated December 
 29, 30 or 31, payable two months after date, 
 falls due on February 28, or in leap year. 
 February 29. It is the rule of the hiw 
 merchant that when a note payal)le one or 
 more months after date is dated on a day of 
 the month which has no corresponding day in 
 tlie month of maturity, the day of maturity 
 is not carried over to the following montli 
 but falls on the last day of the month in whicli 
 it is i)ayablc. Vol. 10, p. 715, April, 1918. 
 
 989. (Pa.) A provision in a collateral 
 note authorizing the holder to demand addi- 
 tional security from time to time and in de- 
 fault thereof immediately maturing the note. 
 destroyed negotiability under the majority of 
 earlier decisions, as it made the note uncer- 
 tain as to amount and time of payment. 
 Since the enactment of the Negotiable Instru- 
 ments Law, the question of nrgotinbility is 
 still doubtful, except in Wisconsin, where a 
 special provision of the Negotiable Instru- 
 ment.s Law makes such a note negotiable, and 
 it would be safer for a bank to regard such 
 note non-negotiable until the question is de- 
 cided. Where such a note is held negotiable 
 and is indorsed, the question of precii^e date 
 {,f maturitv. whether the note immediately 
 
 121
 
 9901 
 
 DIGEST OF LEGAL OPINIONS 
 
 matures upon default or only at tlic o])tion of 
 the holder, is important (1) as respects the 
 rights of suhpcqucnt purchasers (2) as to 
 charging indorsers. There is a difference 
 between the Wisconsin and federal courts 
 upon this question. Vol. 2, p. 533, June, 
 1910. See 893, 893, 895. 
 
 Note collected by agent without authority 
 
 990. (Okla.) The purchaser of a cream 
 separator gave the company selling the same 
 his note of $60, The company's agent, who 
 liad authority only to sell, collected payments 
 on the note, giving a receipt therefor, and 
 did not account to his principal. The com- 
 pany sought to hold the purchaser liable on 
 the note. Opinion: Authority to the agent 
 to sell did not include authority to collect the 
 note unless the company intrusted the agent 
 with the possession of the note. Payment to 
 the agent was at the purchaser's risk, unless 
 he can prove that the agent had actual or os- 
 tensible authority to receive payment without 
 having possession of the note. Vol. 7, p. 35, 
 July, 1914. See 671 et seq. 
 
 Renewals 
 
 991. (Fla.) Where there is a binding 
 agreement supported by a valid consideration 
 between the holder and maker to extend the 
 time of payment of a note, the extension is 
 just as bincling if the contract is evidenced by 
 indorsement on the note and the giving of a 
 receipt for the interest for the extended per- 
 iod, as if a new note is taken in renewal. The 
 effect of such an agreement indorsed on the 
 note is to postpone the holder's right of action 
 and the commencement of the running of the 
 statute of limitations until expiration of the 
 period for which extension is granted. Vol. 
 10, p. 597, Feb., 1918. 
 
 992. (Mich.) A and B sign a joint note 
 for $500, due in three months. A signed a 
 new note in renewal, but B being absent was 
 unable to sign. Both notes were retained. 
 Opinion : The new note does not operate as a 
 payment of the original, but only as a sus- 
 pension of the debt evidenced thereby. Vol. 
 7, p. 997, June, 1915. 
 
 993. (Pa.) A, B and C were makers of 
 a note held by a bank. The bank, not wish- 
 ing to carry the note as overdue paper, caused 
 A and B to execute a new note in renewal of 
 the indebtedness, which C, because of sick- 
 ness, was unable to sign. The bank did not 
 destroy the old note but kept both. Opinion : 
 Where a new note is given in renewal of an 
 old note and the latter is retained, the weight 
 
 of authority is to the efTect that the old note 
 is not extinguished unless the intention is to 
 accept the new note in satisfaction and dis- 
 charge of the first. Vol. 6, p. 272, Oct., 1913. 
 
 994. (Wis.) A gave a note to B Corpor- 
 ation for goods sold, and at maturity by ar- 
 rangement with B for renewal of part of the 
 debt, paid the note to the holding bank and 
 executed a new note for a less amount. The 
 B Corporation indorsed and discounted the 
 renewal note. Opinion : The transaction con- 
 stituted a renewal and not a payment, and 
 the new note is based on the same considera- 
 tion as the old note. The indorsement of the 
 B Corporation is therefore not for accommo- 
 dation, and the bank can hold the corporation 
 in the event of non-pavment bv the maker. 
 Vol. 8, p. 323, Oct., 1915. 
 
 Use of seal 
 See 984 
 
 995. (Fla.) A note is drawn by the 
 maker, payable to his own order, and in- 
 dorsed by him to another. It provides for 
 costs of collection, attorney's fees, and con- 
 tains provisions waiving the benefit of certain 
 laws intended for the benefit of the obligors. 
 A seal is attached to the maker's name. 
 Opinion: The note is negotiable under the 
 Negotiable Instruments Law, although at 
 common law the seal would destrov the nego- 
 tiability. Vol. 4, p. 95, Aug., 1911. 
 
 996. (Pa.) It is a well settled doctrine 
 that a corporation may make promissory 
 notes and simple contracts without affixing 
 its corporate seal. LTnder the law merchant, 
 the affixing of a seal to an individual note de- 
 stroyed its negotiability but this rule was 
 generally held not to apply to corporate notes 
 under seal. Under the Negotiable Instru- 
 ments Act the validity and negotiable char- 
 acter of an instrument are not affected by the 
 fact that it bears a seal. Vol. 5, p. 523, Feb., 
 1913. 
 
 997. (Pa.) A seal is not necessary to 
 the validity of a corporation note, but the use 
 of a seal does not affect its negotiability. Un- 
 less the charter or governing statute requires 
 it, the act of a corporation need not be evi- 
 denced by its corporate seal, except where a 
 seal would be required in the case of indivi- 
 duals. Vol. 5, p. 523, Feb., 1913. 
 
 998. (S. C.) At common law a note of 
 an individual under seal is not negotiable, 
 but under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 
 the nee:otiabilitv is not destroved bv the ad- 
 dition of a seal." Vol. 6, p. 274, Oct., 1913. 
 
 122
 
 NOTES 
 
 1006 
 
 Statute of Limitations on demand note 
 
 999. (Cal.) In California the Statute of 
 Limitations begins to nm against the maker 
 from the date of a demand note, not from the 
 date of its apparent maturity, and the note 
 is outlawed four years from date. Vol. 9, p. 
 825, April, 1917. 
 
 1000. (La.) In Louisiana, the Statute 
 of Limitations begins to run from the date 
 on a demand note and not from demand, 
 such being the rule in most other states and 
 the note is outlawed unless an action is 
 brought within five years from the date. Vol. 
 6, p. 757, May, 1914. 
 
 1001. (N. J.) A corporation issued its 
 demand note in 1911, there being several in- 
 dorsers each waiving presentment, demand 
 and notice of protest. No demand upon the 
 instrument Avas made until 1918. Are the 
 indorsers liable? Opinion: The six year lim- 
 itation provided by the New Jersey Statute 
 of Limitations will not only bar recovery 
 from the makers but also the indorsers. The 
 statute begins to run from the date of the 
 instrument, whetlier or not it draws interest. 
 Vol. 11, p. 171, Sept., 1918. 
 
 1002. (N. Y.) A bank received as se- 
 curity for a loan of $15,000 made to a fruit 
 growers' association, thirty demand notes of 
 $500 each, payable to the order of the asso- 
 ciation. The bank raises three questions. 
 First: Should a place of payment be desig- 
 nated in the notes ? Second : How long is the 
 demand note good? and third: Would a de- 
 mand note draw interest where it contained 
 no provision to that effect? Opinion: Tt 
 would be preferable as a matter of conven- 
 ience to have the demand note payable at the 
 bank. The Statute of Limitations begins to 
 run \ipon a demand note from its date and 
 an action is barred after six years. Where 
 the note makes no provision for interest the 
 rule in New York is that it does not draw in- 
 terest before demand or commencement of an 
 action. Vol. 11, p. 670, June, 1919. 
 
 1003. (N. Y.) Under the Statute of I>im- 
 itations in New York the person wlio guar- 
 antees payment of a note and any renewal of 
 the same is liable for six years from the time 
 the cause of action on tlie note accrues, which 
 would be the date of maturity of the note — 
 or of the renewal if such was the case. The 
 
 guaranty of payment of a demand note would 
 run six years from the time of delivery. Vol. 
 4, p. 28, July, 1911. 
 
 Notes containing words "with exchange" 
 
 1004. (Ind.) A note for .^'i.oUO wjis 
 drawn and made payable at one and the same 
 place "with exchange," without designating 
 that the exchange is on another place. The 
 full amount of the note was paid witiiout de- 
 duction. Opinion: The words ''with ex- 
 change" in the note were meaningless and no 
 exchange charges were collectible from the 
 payor bank. Vol. 0, p. 701, May, 1914. See 
 300, 3(J1, 362, 1061. 
 
 Indorser released by extension of time 
 
 1005. (Ore.) A gave B his nt-gutialde 
 promissory note, due in six months, jiaynient 
 of which was guaranteed by B, who dis- 
 counted it at the bank. At maturity the 
 bank extended A's time of payment thirty 
 days. The note also contained the accom- 
 modation indorsement of C. Opinion: An 
 indorser who guarantees payment is second- 
 arily liable under the Negotiable Listruments 
 Act and if a binding extension of time is 
 granted to the principal maker without his 
 consent he is discharged from liability. Under 
 the Negotiable Listruments Act a surety who 
 signs as maker is not discharged by such ex- 
 tension, the common law being changed in 
 this particular. Vol. 9, p. 657, Feb., 1917. 
 See 964-967. 
 
 Accommodation maker not released by 
 extension of time 
 
 1006. (S. Dak.) A note ha.l lioen signed 
 bv two jiarties. one who received tiie money, 
 the other acting as accommodation maker. 
 The note being past due, the payee took a 
 new note from the first party. Does the ex- 
 tension of the time of paNTnent release the 
 accommodation maker? Opinion: The doc- 
 trine of the hiw of suretyship that a binding 
 extension of time by the crnlitor to the prin- 
 cipal debtor releases a non-consenting surety 
 has, according to a number of authorities, 
 been abrogated by the Negotiable Instruments 
 Act where the surety signs the instrument as 
 one of the makers. This point has not been 
 decided in South Dakota, but according to the 
 weight of authority the accommodation 
 maker being primarilv liable would not be re- 
 leased. Vol. 11, p. 213, Oct.. 1918. 
 
 123
 
 1007 
 
 NOTES PAYABLE AT BANK 
 
 For Stoi)j)in;,^ J'iij'inout of iS'otes i'liyablc at Jiuiik, Suo l2l'.)-\252 
 
 Equivalent to order to pay at maturity 
 See 772, 1212, 1330 
 
 NoTK: TIic Ncpjotiablc Instnimont.s Act, Sec. 87, 
 ])rovide.s: "U'lierc the iiislnmiiMit is made ])iiyivl)le 
 at a bank it is equivalent to an order to tlie l)ank 
 to pay the same for the account of tlio jirincipal 
 debtor thereon." The Negotiable Instruments 
 Act has been passed in all the states except 
 Georgia. As passed in Illinois, Nebraska, and 
 South Dakota, however, the above provision is 
 omitted; in Kansas, the section, while originally 
 enacted, was repealed by chapter 94, Laws of 
 1915, and in Minnesota the word "not" was in- 
 terpolated. In tliose states, therefore, the bank 
 is not authorized or obliged to pay its custom- 
 er's note, made payable at the bank (as indicated 
 in the opinions digested below), without express 
 instructions from him. In all other Negotiable 
 Instruments Law states it is so authorized and 
 obliged. In Missouri, the legislature by amend- 
 ment in 1909, added the following at the end of 
 the Section : "But where the instrument is made 
 payable at a fixed determinable future time, the 
 order to the bank is limited to the day of ma- 
 turity." 
 
 1007. (Mo.) Under the rule of the Ne- 
 gotiable Instruments Law a man who makes 
 his note payable at his bank thereby orders 
 it to pay it at maturity and the bank is 
 obliged to carry out this order, when in suffi- 
 cient funds, the same as if the order was by 
 check. Vol. 3, p. 276, Nov., 1910. 
 
 1008. (N. C.) Under the Negotiable 
 Instruments Law it is probable that the au- 
 thority of a bank to pay a time instrument, 
 payable at the bank, is limited to the day of 
 maturity only, although the point lias not yet 
 been passed upon in this country. Vol. 3, 
 p. 524, March, 1911. 
 
 1009. (Okla.) In Oklahoma, under the 
 rule of the Negotiable Instruments Law, a 
 depositor who issues his note payable at the 
 bank wherein he keeps an account, thereby 
 orders the bank to pay the same at maturity. 
 It becomes the duty of the bank, if in funds, 
 to pay the note, and the bank incurs no lia- 
 bility to the depositor for so doing, even 
 though he afterwards objects to the payment 
 and claims he had good reason for having 
 payment of the note refused. Vol. 3, p. 336, 
 Dec, 1910. 
 
 1010. (Pa.) A note is made payable at 
 a bank. At maturity the account is good for 
 the amount. No order has been given not 
 to pay. The bank inquires whether a specific 
 notice must be given the bank by the maker 
 to entitle it to pay the note. Opinion : LTnder 
 the Negotiable Instruments Law it is the au- 
 thority and duty of a bank to pay a customer's 
 
 note made payable at the bank without ex- 
 press instructions from the customer. Vol. 
 4, p. 304, Nov., 1911. 
 
 Express instructions to pay 
 
 See 425 
 
 1011. (Cal.) Notes made payable at a 
 California bank, where the maker had suffi- 
 cient funds, were forwarded to the bank for 
 collection. The bank inquired of the maker 
 by mail and telephone whether it should pay 
 or refuse payment but received no response. 
 Opinion: The law in California is uncertain 
 whether the note operates as an order or au- 
 thority to the bank to pay and charge to the 
 maker's account, or whether the bank has no 
 right to do so in the absence of express in- 
 structions from the maker. Vol. 7, p. 383, 
 Dec, 1914. 
 
 Note: In 1917, California passed the Nego- 
 tiable Instruments Act, Sec. 87 of which (Civ. 
 Code §3168) provides: "Where the instrument is 
 made payable at a bank it is equivalent to an 
 order to the bank to pay the same for the account 
 of the principal debtor thereon." See note under 
 heading "Notes payable at bank." 
 
 1012. (Cal.) ^Miere A and B have a 
 joint account in bank payable on presenta- 
 tion of pass-book, and A makes her individual 
 note payable at bank. Opinion: That bank, 
 holding note for collection at maturity, has 
 no right to charge same to joint account, but 
 should protest unless funds to pay note are 
 taken out of joint account by A on presen- 
 tation of pass-book or are otherwise provided 
 by A for purpose of meeting the note. Vol. 
 6, p. 96, Aug., 1913. 
 
 1013. (111.) In Illinois the Negotiable 
 Instruments Law omits the provision 'Where 
 the instrument is made payable at a bank it 
 is equivalent to an order to the bank to pay 
 the same for the account of the principal 
 debtor thereon" which is contained in the uni- 
 form law of other states. Under the judi- 
 cial decisions of Illinois it would seem that a 
 bank has no authority to pay its customer's 
 note made payable at the bank, unless express- 
 ly ordered to do so by its customer, the note 
 itself not constituting such order. Vol. 3, 
 p. 337, Dec, 1910. 
 
 1014. (Minn.) Where customer makes 
 note payable at bank it is bank's duty, under 
 Negotiable Instruments Act, to pay and 
 charge same up to customer's account with- 
 out special order. In a few states, however, 
 including Minnesota, the rule of the Nego- 
 tiable Instruments Act has been changed and 
 
 124
 
 NOTES PAYABLE AT BAXK 
 
 1023 
 
 bank should not pay without special order 
 from customer. Vol. 10, p. 854, June, 1918. 
 
 1015. (Miss.) In states having the Ne- 
 gotiable Instruments Law (\<qth a few ex- 
 ceptions) a note payable at the maker's bank 
 is equivalent to an order on the bank to pay 
 the same for his account. In Mississippi the 
 point has not yet been decided, but the safer 
 practice is for the bank to refuse to pay in 
 tlie absence of instructions. Vol. 5, p. 106, 
 Aug., 1912. 
 
 Note: The Negotiable Instruments Act was 
 passed in Mississippi in 191G; see note under 
 lieading "Notes payable at bank." 
 
 1016. (Mo.) Under Negotiable Instru- 
 ments Act, except where modified in certain 
 states, it is the duty of a bank whose depos- 
 itor has made his note payable at the bank 
 to pay the same at maturity, the funds being 
 sufficient, althougli tlicre is no other express 
 instruction from the depositor to pay. Vol. 
 6, p. 506. Jan., 1914. 
 
 1017. (Okla.) A holds note of B pay- 
 able to order of A at C bank. B has money 
 on deposit at C bank at maturity of note. C 
 bank is uncertain of its right and duty to pay 
 when presented at maturity. Opinion: The 
 Negotiable Instruments Law provides : 
 "Where the instrument is made payable at 
 a bank it is equivalent to an order to the bank 
 to pay the same for the account of the prin- 
 cipal debtor tliereon." Vol. 4, p. 219, Oct., 
 1911. 
 
 1018. (W. Va.) The purpose of the sec- 
 tion of the Negotiable Instruments Law mak- 
 ing a note payable at a bank equivalent to an 
 order to pay for the account of the maker, is 
 to oblige as well as to authorize the bank to 
 pay when in funds, and it was enacted to 
 clear up a conflict in decisions. Vol. 4, 
 p. 304, Nov., 1911. 
 
 Maker's readiness to pay stops interest 
 
 1019. (Okla. A made his note payable 
 at a bank on demand after date. The note 
 was not presented at the bank where the 
 maker always had sufficient funds. Opinion: 
 The maker is liable in an action by the payee, 
 but if the maker pleads and proves that he 
 had sufficient funds in the bank at maturity 
 and pays the money into court, he is lial)le 
 only for the principal without interest after 
 maturity or costs. Vol. 8, p. 518, Dec, 1915. 
 
 1020. (Iowa.) Where maker has funds 
 in bank at maturity, failure of bank owning 
 note payable at bank to charge to account, or 
 of outside holder to present for payment, will 
 stop tlie running of interest. Vof. 5, p. 831, 
 June, 1913. 
 
 Payment after maturity 
 See 1335, 133G 
 
 1021. (Kan.) Where a customer makes 
 a note payable at a bank, the Negotiable In- 
 struments Laws provides that the instrument 
 is an order to the bank to pay the same for the 
 account of the principal debtor thereon. 
 Where the note is payable "thirty days after 
 date," tlie bank should pay at maturit)'. If 
 j)resented after the maturity the bank slinuld 
 first require express authority from the 
 maker. If the note is "payable on demand 
 after date" the bank should pay, provided the 
 note was presented within a reasonable time. 
 Vol. 5, p. 524, Feb., 1913. 
 
 Note: This section of the Negotiable Instru- 
 ments Act making an instrument payable at a 
 bank equivalent to an order to pay was ropeale<l 
 by the Legislature of Kansas, I'h. 04, Laws of 
 1915. See note \inder heading "Instruments pay- 
 able at liank." 
 
 NOTICE OF DISHONOR 
 
 Accommodation indorser entitled to 
 notice 
 
 See 1173 
 
 1022. (D. C.) Three accommodation 
 notes intended for discount were drawn as 
 follows: No. 1, payable to and indorsed by ac- 
 commodation party and discounted for tlie 
 maker; No. 3, payable to bank, indorsed by 
 the accommodation party and discounted for 
 the maker; No. 3, made by accommodation 
 party and discounted for the payee. Ojnn- 
 
 ion : The bank is equally protected by notes 1, 
 2 or 3, except that in case of notes No?. 1 and 
 
 2, demand and notice would bo required to 
 preserve the liability of the indorser, unlc^js 
 the notes contain a waiver. As to note No. 
 
 3, no demand and notice are necessary to hold 
 the accommodation party who is liable as 
 maker. Vol. 7, p. 218, Oct.. 1914. 
 
 1023. (111.) A corporation oxooutcd its 
 note payalilc on demand to B. and indorsed 
 for accommodation by C. one of its officers. 
 Payment was demanded ninety days later 
 
 125
 
 1024 
 
 1)u;e,st of le(j;al oi'INions 
 
 and rel'iised. C was not notified of its non- 
 })ayment until several weeks thereal'tcr. 
 Opinion: Under the Ne;^otial)le Iiistniinerits 
 Act, C, the indorser, is released from liability. 
 Irrespective of the (juestion whether demand 
 of payment was made in due season, the fail- 
 ure to give C due notice of dishonor released 
 C. Vol. 8, p. 326, Oct., 1915. See 76. 
 
 1024. (Ind.) A customer discounted 
 and forwarded for collection a note given T:)y 
 a corporation and indorsed by officers of the 
 company as individuals. The corporation 
 went into the hands of a receiver. At ma- 
 turity the note was presented by a notary at 
 the place of business of the company, which 
 was also the place of business of the indors- 
 ers, but being closed he was unable to make 
 formal demand. The notary notified the 
 payee of the dishonor but no notice of pro- 
 test was sent to the individual indorsers. 
 Opinion: The officers of a corporation who 
 indorse its note are entitled to due present- 
 ment and notice of dishonor unless the facts 
 constitute an implied waiver or the indorser 
 is the person to whom the instrument is pre- 
 sented for payment. Under the facts there 
 would seem a fair ground for holding the in- 
 dorsers liable, although there was an 
 omission of notice of dishonor. Assuming, 
 however, the accommodation indorsers were 
 discharged, neither the collecting bank nor 
 notary would be liable, because it is only ob- 
 ligatory upon a collecting bank to notify its 
 immediate principal. Vol. 9, p. 236, Sept., 
 1916. 
 
 Duty to notify 
 
 1025. (Colo.) A bank in Colorado re- 
 ceived from its customer a promissory note 
 for collection in Milwaukee. The note was 
 signed by A and indorsed unqualifiedly by B, 
 and was forwarded to its Milwaukee corres- 
 pondent, who presented the same on the date 
 of maturity. The instrument was not paid, 
 but the bank as collecting agent failed to 
 notify B of non-payment. It did, however, 
 immediately notify the Colorado bank, which 
 notified its customer, who in turn notified the 
 indorser. The indorser has refused to pay 
 the note. Opinion: Formal notarial protest 
 was not required to hold the indorser, the in- 
 strument not being a foreign bill of exchange, 
 and the collecting agent in IMihvaukee gave 
 notice to his immediate principal — that is, 
 the Colorado bank — apparently in due sea- 
 son; the principal immediately notified its 
 customer, the prior indorser, and he in turn 
 notified B, his prior indorser, who is the 
 
 party sought to be held liable. Consequently 
 due notice of dishonor was given. An agent 
 for collection may either himself give notice 
 of dishonor to all parties liable or he may 
 give notice to his principal and the principal 
 himself notify prior indorsers. Vol. 11, p. 
 168, Sept., 1918. 
 
 1026. (N. Y.) Bank receiving note for 
 collection is only obliged to send notice of 
 dishonor or protest to immediate principal. 
 Express agreement would be necessary to 
 create duty to notify all prior parties. Vol. 
 4, p. 434, Jan., 1912. 
 
 1027. (N. Dak.) A drawee received 
 through the mail an indorsed inland check, 
 payment of which had been stopped. The 
 drawee bank, having returned the item to the 
 presenting bank, asks if it is its duty to notify 
 all the indorsers of dishonor. Opinion: The 
 drawee is not obliged to notify all of the in- 
 dorsers but notice to the immediate principal 
 is sufficient. It is customary, however, for 
 the collecting bank to protest an inland check 
 as a convenient means of proving dishonor. 
 Vol. 9, p. 499, Dec, 1916. 
 
 Notice upon default of instalment 
 
 1028. (Mich.) The principle is well 
 established that where the principal of a 
 note is payable in instalments, a failure to 
 pay one of them when due makes the note 
 dishonored paper. An indorser is discharged 
 by failure to give notice of dishonor upon 
 default in payment of an instalment, but 
 according to some cases, is liable for subse- 
 quent instalments of the non-pa}'ment of 
 which he is duly notified. Vol 7, p. 998, 
 June, 1915. 
 
 1029. (Mich.) A gave B his note for 
 $825, payable in monthly instalments of 
 $25. A made sundry payments but not ac- 
 cording to the agreed instalments and finally 
 owed $135 on the note on the day the whole 
 debt would have been discharged had the 
 payments been regular. Xotice of protest 
 was duly mailed to C, the indorser, who 
 claimed non-liability because he received no 
 notice of A's failure to pay each instalment 
 according to the terms of the instrument. 
 Opinion: Upon the first default in payment 
 of any instalment, the note became overdue 
 and dishonored. C the indorser was dis- 
 charged by failure to give notice of dishonor 
 upon the default in payment of the instal- 
 ment. According to some cases, if the in- 
 dorser is notified of the non-payment of sub- 
 sequent instalments, he can be held, but this 
 
 126
 
 NOTICE OF DISHONOR 
 
 1037 
 
 rule would not apply in the present case ex- 
 cept, possibly, as to the Kist instalment. Vol. 
 7, p. 998, June, 1915. 
 
 Provisions in the Negotiable Instruments 
 Law 
 
 See 1034, 1173 
 
 1030. (Pa.) The Negotiable Instru- 
 ments Law governing notice of dishonor 
 provides that : "The notice may be in writ- 
 ing or merely oral, and may be given in any 
 terms which sufficiently identify the instru- 
 ment, and indicate that it has been dishon- 
 ored by non-acceptance or non-payment. It 
 may in all cases be given by delivering it 
 personally or through the mails." For a 
 form of notice see Vol. 2, p. 190, Nov., 1909. 
 
 Sufficiency of notice 
 
 1031. (Colo.) A check of $111 on a 
 hank in Ohio was indorsed on October 26th 
 to a bank in Colorado by one of its depositors 
 and forwarded for collection. Notice of pro- 
 test was not received by the bank until No- 
 vember 11th and the amount was described 
 as $110. The bank immediately notified its 
 depositor that it had received such notice of 
 protest. The depositor refused to reimburse 
 the bank on the ground that the notice of 
 protest did not refer to the item indorsed 
 iiy him. Notice of protest of a further check 
 deposited at the same time was not received 
 by the bank until November 14th. Opinion: 
 The mere inaccuracy in the statement of the 
 amount of the dishonored check did not in- 
 validate the notice of protest where the in- 
 dorser was not misled thereby. But assum- 
 ing the checks were presented and protested 
 on October 31st (the inquiry omits the date 
 of forwarding) the notice of dishonor should 
 have been mailed not later than November 
 2d, and the fact that the notice was not re- 
 ceived in one case until November llth and 
 in the other until November 14th would in- 
 dicate that the notice Avas not mailed in due 
 
 season and the indorser would be discharged. 
 The Colorado lank, however, can recover 
 from the collecting bank if the latter was 
 responsible for the delay which responsibility 
 would extend to the negligence of the notary 
 employed by it. Xo]. 9, p, oSO, Jan., 1917.' 
 
 Surety-maker of note not entitled to 
 notice 
 
 >.<-e !U)7 
 
 1032. (Neb.) B and C made a note 
 payal)U' to A. At maturity B refused to pay. 
 Six months later A demanded payment from 
 C, who refused on the ground that he received 
 no notice of dishonor. Oinnion: No notice 
 was required to bind C, who is one of the 
 makers, even though he is suretv for another 
 maker. A'ol. 4, p. 94, Aug., 1911. 
 
 1033. (S. C.) Notice of dishonor is not 
 required to be given the maker of a note, and 
 a joint maker, though a surety, is not entitled 
 to such notice. Vol. 6, p. 687, April, 1914. 
 
 Waiver of notice of dishonor 
 See 1170 et scq 
 
 1034. (Mass.) Under the Negotiable 
 Instruments Law a waiver of demand and 
 notice if embodied in the instrument binds 
 all parties, but where it is written above the 
 signature of an indorser it binds him only. 
 The law does not recpiire the waiver to be 
 handwritten. Vol. 9, p. 415, Nov., 1916. 
 
 1035. (S. C.) In the body of a note was 
 inserted "notice of ])rotest is hereby waive<i 
 by all parties liable herein.'' Ofiinion: This 
 is binding on all parties as a waiver of notice. 
 but miglit not be construed as a waiver of 
 l)reseiitmcnt. Vol. 6. p. 687, April, 1914. 
 
 1036. (S. C.) W here a note payable to 
 a l)ank was signed on its face by John Doe 
 and on its back l»y IJichard IJoo the latter is 
 liable as an indorser and is entitled to notice 
 of dishonor, uidess the instrument contains 
 a waiver. V»L «i. p. 687, April, 1914. 
 
 PASS-BOOKS 
 
 Assignment of pass-book 
 
 1037. (N. H.) r.ank A loaned an iinli- 
 vidual $1,000 upon the collateral security of 
 a written order and a pass-book connected 
 with a savings account in Bank B. Bank li 
 received and accepted notice of the assign- 
 ment and later failed. The depositor was 
 also a stockholder in Bank B, lial)le to assess- 
 ment. The receiver of Bank B refused to 
 
 obey tiie written order given by its depositor 
 and jiroposed to hold the account to soiMirc 
 the depositor's lialiility as stockholder. OjAn- 
 ion: Bank A is entitled to the deposit and 
 sueli right is .^^uperior to any claim of lien 
 by the receiver for B. In this case the as- 
 signment would have been valid, even without 
 the notice to or acceptance bv Bank B. Vol. 
 8, p. 510, Dec., 1915. 
 
 127
 
 1038 
 
 DIGEST OF LEGAL OPINIONS 
 
 1038. (N. C.) A savings bank or sav- 
 ings (l('i)artnient pass-hook contains a rule 
 reiiuiring its present nient wlien money is 
 withdrawn in order that j)aynu'nt may he 
 duly ent^^red therein. A check was cashed 
 without sucii presentment and no entry ol" the 
 witlidrawal was made in the pass-book. An 
 innocent assignee or pledgee of the book ad- 
 vanced value thereon upon faith of the entries 
 shown. Opinion: A savings pass-book 
 is not negotiable and the assignee cannot hold 
 the bank liable where the withdrawals have 
 not been entered as provided by the rules 
 printed in the book. The savings bank is not 
 estopped to show the tnie state of the account. 
 Vol. 7, p. 306, Nov., 1914. 
 
 1039. (S. Dak.) A depositor of a sav- 
 ings bank withdrew from his account of $500 
 the sum of $100, but, contrary to the rules 
 printed in his pass-book, the withdrawal was 
 not entered therein. He then assigned the 
 book, showing a balance of $500 to Bank A, 
 which cashed his check for $500. The sav- 
 ings hank admitted liability only to the 
 extent of $400. Opinion: Bank A is the loser 
 of $100 unless it can recover that amount 
 from the depositor. The savings bank is not 
 liable, because the pass-book is not a nego- 
 tiable instrument and Bank A took no greater 
 rights than the depositor. Vol. 3, p. 9, 
 July, 1910. 
 
 1040. (S. Dak.) A savings t)ank or 
 savings department pass-book is not a nego- 
 tiable instrument, and an assignee of the 
 book and account from the depositor takes 
 no greater rights than the latter against the 
 bank. Vol. 3, p. 9, July, 1910. 
 
 Duty of depositor to examine pass-book 
 
 1041. (W. Va.) An item of $50 cred- 
 ited in a pass-book in December, 1911, was 
 not entered on the bank's ledger to the credit 
 of the depositor and was omitted in the bal- 
 ancing of the account in January, 1912, and 
 in subsequent balancing. No claim was made 
 that the bank had made an error until more 
 than six years later, and then by the admin- 
 istrator of the depositor. In the meantime, 
 the deposit tickets of December, 1911, were 
 destroyed and the administrator could not 
 produce the checks which entered into the 
 balance of January, 1912. Is tlie bank liable 
 for the amount? Opinion: In this case it 
 would undoubtedly he held that the failure 
 on the part of the depositor to examine his 
 pass-hook and returned vouchers without un- 
 reasonable delay, and to report errors to the 
 bank will free the bank from liability. It is 
 
 the duty of a depositor to examine his pa.s8- 
 book and report errors within a reasonable 
 time after balancing and his failure so to do 
 will, according to some cases, estop him from 
 thereafter questioning its correctness, if the 
 bank would be thereby prejudiced, while other 
 cases hold he is not thereby estopped, but that 
 the burden of showing error is placed on the 
 depositor. Vol. 11, p. 98, Aug., 1918. 
 
 Nature of pass-book 
 
 Soe 141, 4G6, 814, 1038 
 
 1042. (Colo.) Bank A cashed several 
 checks for a party drawn on a bank at Sul- 
 phur Springs, Colorado, upon the strength 
 of a pass-book given him by that institution, 
 sliowing a credit of $300. The Sulphur 
 Springs bank refused payment of the checks, 
 stating that credit was given the drawer by 
 mistake and the entry in the pass-book was 
 invalid. Opinion: The pass-book was not a 
 letter of credit, but merely prima jade evi- 
 dence of a deposit and the bank may show 
 that credit was given by mistake or for an 
 invalid item. A check not being an assign- 
 ment under the Negotiable Instruments Law 
 Bank A has no right of action thereon against 
 the drawee. Vol. 4, p. 492, Feb., 1912. 
 
 Presentation of savings pass-book 
 
 See 529 et seq., 1012 
 
 1043. (Pa.) A depositor having a sav- 
 ings account issued his check to the order of 
 B in negotiable form. The check was de- 
 livered to B without the pass-book, which 
 provided that the bank will not honor any 
 checks on the account unless accompanied by 
 the pass-book. B indorsed to the order of C, 
 who had the check certified by the bank. 
 After the bank charged the amount to the 
 drawer's account, it learned that B obtained 
 the check through fraud. Opinion: Pa}Tnent 
 of such a check without production of the 
 pass-book would probably be valid, the condi- 
 tion of production being waived by both 
 drawer and drawee; and, payment being 
 valid, certification of the check in the hands 
 of a bona fide holder would be equally charge- 
 able to the depositor. Vol. 5, p. 525, Feb., 
 1913. 
 
 Rules in savings pass-book 
 See 504, 530, 531, 532, 1038 
 
 1044. (Pa.) A check drawn on the D 
 national bank was cashed by a bank and pre- 
 sented to the drawee, which refused pavTiient, 
 stating that the drawer had a savings account 
 which was good for the amount but the rules 
 
 128
 
 PAYMENT 
 
 1051 
 
 required that a check on the savings depart- 
 ment must be accompanied by the customer's 
 bank-book. The holder questions the right 
 of the drawee to refuse payment under such 
 rules. Opinion: The rules constitute a con- 
 tract between bank and depositor under 
 which the bank would have a right to refuse 
 to pay a check unless accompanied by the 
 book. The remedy of the holder of the 
 check is against the drawer and prior parties, 
 unless the book can be procured from the de- 
 positor to accompany the check. Vol. 2, p. 
 412, April, 1910. 
 
 1045. (W. Va.) The by-laws contained 
 in a savings bank pass-book provide : ''If any 
 person shall present a book and falsely allege 
 himself or herself to be the depositor named 
 therein, and thereby obtain the amount de- 
 
 posited, or any part thereof, this institution 
 will not be liable to make good any loss tlie 
 actual depositor may sustain thereby, unless 
 previous notice of his or her book haring 
 been lost or taken shall have been given at the 
 office of the bank." A book of a depositor 
 was stolen, presented to the bank and pay- 
 ment was made on a forged signature. The 
 liank received no notice of the loss of the book 
 until the day after tiie forgery was perpe- 
 trated. Under the above rule what are the 
 bank's rights? Opinion: A rule printed in 
 the pass-book of a depositor that the bank will 
 not be liable fur payment to a person pre- 
 senting the book who falsely alleges himself 
 to be the depositor, will not relieve the bank 
 making payment to such person upon forged 
 order unless it uses reasonable care. Vol. 10, 
 p. 46, July, 1917. 
 
 PAYMENT 
 
 Payment after notice of assignment 
 
 1046. (Ariz.) The purchaser of a bill 
 of goods from a firm in New York City 
 brought the invoice of the goods to his bank, 
 which at his request made and sent a draft 
 payable to the firm in payment for the goods. 
 The invoice contained the following notation 
 printed in red ink, which Avas overlooked by 
 the bank and the debtor : "This bill is as- 
 signed and payable to A, B, & Co., Bankers." 
 Opinion: In the event the firm did not refund 
 the amount of the draft which was paid by 
 mistake, the debtor who had notice of the as- 
 signment must pay again to the assignee. 
 The notice of the assignment printed in red 
 ink was of such prominence as to be regarded 
 as suificient. The bank would not be lialile 
 for negligence in overlooking the notice of 
 assignment, because debtor also overlooked 
 same and the mistake was mutual. Vol. 7, 
 p. 100, Aug., 1914. 
 
 1047. (Tenn.) A dealer who sold a bill 
 of timber to a ship building company made 
 an account against the company and trans- 
 ferred it to a bank, at the same time notifying 
 tiie company of the assignment. The com- 
 pany nevertheless sent its check to the dealer. 
 Opinion: After the notice of assignment to 
 the debtor, ])uynient to the assignor is at its 
 risk and renders the company liable in case 
 of loss. Vol. 5, p. 173, Sept., 1012. 
 
 Application of payment 
 
 1048. (Mont.) A gave his note to a 
 baid-c and B signed Avith him. After matur- 
 
 ity A tendered the money to the bank with the 
 request that it be applied on such note. The 
 bank applied the money on other notes of A. 
 Opinion: B as surety has a perfect defense to 
 a suit on the note in the plea of payment. 
 A debtor voluntarily paying money to liis 
 creditor has the primary and paramount 
 right to direct the application of his money 
 to such demands as he chooses. Vol. 7. j). 38, 
 July, 1914. 
 
 1049. (Wyo.) A bank held two past 
 due notes, one insufficiently secured by real 
 estate, and the other over-secured by chattels. 
 In satisfaction of the chattel mortgage note, 
 the debtor tendered his check marked "for 
 chattel mortgage." The bank refused to 
 apply payment as specified and in.sistod upon 
 applying payment upon the real estate note. 
 The debtor ae<|uieseed in the action by the 
 bank. Opinion: T\\o deljtor had tiie ]>riniary 
 rigid to have the money applied in payment 
 of the chattel nmrtgage note, but where the 
 bank ap|)lied the {)ayment upon another debt, 
 asc(|uiescen('e bv the debtor ratified such ap- 
 plication. Vol". 7, p. 37. July. 1:M I. 
 
 Conditional payment by check 
 
 1050. (N. Y.) .\ check taken a» abso- 
 lute payment of a note will operate to extin- 
 guish the note, but, in the absence of an 
 agreement, the giving and receipt of a check 
 is usually considered a conditional payment 
 onlv and not ab.'iolute until the check itself is 
 paid. Vol. '\ p. 829, June, 1913. 
 
 1051. (Wis.) A check was received by 
 a bank to take up a note held by it due on 
 
 129
 
 1052 
 
 DKii'is^r oi' lI':(;ai. oimxions 
 
 the fitli. The noto was rctaiiul until jmy- 
 iiiont of the check on the 7th. Oijinioii: The 
 checjk was received as conditional payment, 
 and the stainpin*^ of the note "paid on the 
 7th" is correct as indicating the date of ac- 
 tual i)avnicnt. Vol. 0, p. J)4, Aug., 1913. 
 See 11(5'). 
 
 Payment by mistake 
 
 Sec 4-24, 4S4, 4S.j, (iUi, (V.U 
 
 1052. (111.) A customer handed in to 
 liis hank several checks aniountin_ti; to several 
 hundred dollars, and from this amount a 
 note and interest was deducted and a halance 
 struck in favor of the customer, which was 
 paid over. It was afterwards discovered that 
 the balance was incorrectly figured at an ex- 
 cess of $30. Opinion: The bank can recover 
 the money as being paid under a mistake of 
 fact. The fact that the error was made in 
 figuring the balance makes the case stronger 
 for the bank than if the balance was correctly 
 struck and the mistake occurred in paying 
 over the cash, for the teller's testimony of 
 over-payment would be supported bv the orig- 
 inal figures. Vol. 4, p. 493, Feb.,"l912. 
 
 1053. (Mont.) A bank in Montana re- 
 ceived from a Kentucky bank a sight draft 
 for $72. G7 with a bill of lading attached 
 covering a balance claimed due on a shipment 
 of liquor from a Kentucky distillery to a local 
 liquor dealer. The local dealer paid the 
 Montana bank the amount, surrendered the 
 bill of lading and obtained his goods. The 
 Montana bank by mistake sent its draft pay- 
 able to the distillery instead of to the bank. 
 The distillery under the misapprehension that 
 the draft came from the local dealer, instead 
 of turning it over to its bank or returning it 
 to the Montana bank, indorsed it in blank and 
 returned it to the local dealer. The dealer 
 cashed it at the Montana bank and held the 
 money, claiming that "the distillery was in- 
 debted to him for $68. The Montana bank 
 wishes to be advised. Opinion: The local 
 dealer is not a holder in due course and the 
 Montana bank has a right of recovery of the 
 money paid to him under the rule that money 
 paid under mistake of fact is recoverable. 
 Vol. 10, p. o9G, Feb., 1918. 
 
 1054. (Mont.) A bank in the ordinary 
 course of business pays to a bona fide holder 
 a check drawn on it, under the mistaken be- 
 lief that the drawer had funds when he had 
 not. Opinion : Payment cannot be recovered, 
 and the fact that the holder would be in no 
 worse position if com])elled to refund than if 
 payment had not been made does not author- 
 ize a recovery. Vol. 10, p. 377, Nov., 1917. 
 
 1055. (Neb.) A will bequeathed a leg- 
 acy (o John iirown of Howard, 111,, the real 
 legatee intended being John Brown of Hall, 
 III., who had never lived at Howard. The 
 executrix notified John I>rown of Howard, 
 sending him a receifjt and instructing a bank 
 to forward him the amount upon receiving 
 the receipt. The instruction was cariied out 
 by the bank. Opinion: There is no liability 
 on the part of the bank but the executrix is 
 liable to the real legatee, unless the misde- 
 scription of his address in the will should 
 be held sufficient to estop him from question- 
 ing the validity of the payment. Vol, 10, p. 
 715, April, 1918. 
 
 1055. (Pa.) A deposit of $105 made by 
 one depositor was erroneously credited to an- 
 other depositor, who checked out the amount. 
 Opinion: The bank has a right of action 
 against the custom.er to recover the amount of 
 the overdraft with interest from the time 
 overdrawn. Vol. 7, p. 492, Jan., 1915. See 
 484, 485. 
 
 1057. (Tex.) A bank collected A's bill 
 of lading draft from B and remitted the pro- 
 ceed by mistake to C, who was a creditor of 
 B on open account; C took the money and 
 applied it on B's debt and thereafter settled 
 with him and relinquished security for in- 
 debtedness. The bank paid A and having 
 paid twdce made demand on C. C refused to 
 refund, claiming that it is B's duty to return 
 the money to the collecting bank. Opinion : 
 It is a general rule that money paid under a 
 mistake of fact may be recovered back, and 
 unless C received this money in the honest 
 belief that it was intended as a pav'ment on 
 account of B's indebtedness and on faith 
 thereof surrendered the security to B, C 
 would be liable. Vol. 8, p. 34, July, 1915. 
 
 Payment of overdrawn letter of credit 
 
 1058. (Kan.) A bank issued a letter of 
 credit for $100, promising to honor drafts to 
 that amount. The letter required that the 
 amount of each payment be indorsed on the 
 letter and negotiation of the draft to consti- 
 tute a guaranty that the requisite indorse- 
 ment Avas made and that all drafts "be drawn 
 against our letter of credit No. 101." Five 
 drafts of $25 each were drawn and paid, 
 creating an overdraft of $25. The first draft 
 stated it was drawn against the letter; the 
 next three did not so state and the letter was 
 attached to the last draft drawn. Opinion: 
 The bank has recourse upon its customer for 
 the overdraft but will have no recourse 
 against anv of the cashing banks unless it 
 
 130
 
 PLEDGE AND COLLATERAL 
 
 10G3 
 
 can prove the drafts were negotiated against 
 the letter and the requirements not complied 
 with. The bank should have refused pay- 
 ment of drafts not indorsed as drawn against 
 the letter, for otherwise such drafts could be 
 negotiated witliout showing the letter. Vol. 
 6, p. 573, Feb., 1914. 
 
 1059. (Okla.) A bank issued a general 
 letter of credit authorizing drafts to a certain 
 amount to be indorsed upon the letter of 
 credit. The question is raised as to whom 
 would be the loser, if another bank m.iking 
 a payment on the letter of credit neglected to 
 make a notation of this payment and through 
 this neglect gave the holder an opportunity 
 to draw more than the face of the letter of 
 credit. Opinion: The bank issuing the letter 
 of credit is liable to the innocent purchaser 
 of a draft drawn against the latter and within 
 its amount, notwithstanding the holder of the 
 letter has previously exhausted the credit by 
 drafts not so indorsed. It would be liable for 
 an amount within the unindorsed total of 
 the letter of credit, although it had paid the 
 full amount of the letter upon drafts which 
 had not been indorsed thereon. In order to 
 safeguard the issuing bank from being misled 
 into paying an ordinary draft i)y the drawer 
 of the letter but not indorsed there, the only 
 protection would be to require that drafts 
 drawn against the letter should specify upon 
 their face that they were so drawn and that 
 their amount had been indorsed upon the 
 letter; the bank refusing to pay such drafts 
 as did not contain this statement. The 
 draft might contain a clause : "Drawn against 
 
 your letter of credit No and the 
 
 amount of this draft has been indorsed there- 
 
 on." If the draft itself contained such state- 
 ment, this would be an express warranty by 
 the purchaser to the drawee of a material 
 fact which, if false and the drawee relied 
 thereon to his injury, would entitle him to 
 recourse upon such purchaser. Vol. 11, p. 
 494, March, 1010. 
 
 Partial payment 
 S,-.. 771. <)Glt, 11^8, 1211 
 
 1060. (Mo.) A credit of $1,000 on a 
 note as part payment was in the maker's 
 handwriting. The executor of the payee 
 doubts that such payment was ever made, 
 and inquires iiow to proceed to overcome the 
 indorsement. Opinion : The burden of proof 
 is on the maker to establish the fact of part 
 payment, unless the indorsement is in tlie 
 liandwriting of the creditor. Vol. 5, p. 517, 
 Feb., 1!)i:]. 
 
 Effect of words "with exchange" 
 
 1061. (Conn.) A draft payable in Phil- 
 adelphia "with New York Exchange" was 
 presented for payment. The acceptor ten- 
 dered the face amount in New York exchange, 
 which was refused by the collecting bank. 
 The collecting bank considered "with New 
 York Exchange" meant "plus New York Ex- 
 change" and required the payment of the 
 cost of exchange on New York. Opinion: 
 The draft called for payment of tiie face 
 amount plus the cost of exchange on New 
 York, and the collecting bank would be jus- 
 tified in protesting and returning the draft. 
 Vol. (), p. fi;n, :March, 19 H. 
 
 See 3C)0, ofil, 302, 1004. 
 
 PLEDGE AND COLLATERAL 
 
 Accounts receivable as collateral security 
 
 1062. (Pa.) To constitute a valid 
 pledge of an account receivable there must 
 be an assignment in writing, mere delivery of 
 a copy of the account being insufficient. In 
 case of such assignment of accounts, tbe bank 
 is safe if the debtor is notified before ]iay- 
 nent to the assignor; or where the borrower 
 acts as the lender's agent to colloct tiie ac- 
 counts, a bond or security for tbe fidelity of 
 the agent should be required. Where the as- 
 signment is for the ])urpose of securing credit 
 and not for a prior debt, the bank in the event 
 of the borrower's bankruptcy, would have a 
 prior claim upon such accounts for the 
 amount of its advances ; but wliere the as- 
 
 signmtMit is made within four months of the 
 borrower's l)ankruptcy for the purpose of ise- 
 (iiring an existing debt, such assignment 
 would pnibablv be void as a preference. Vol. 
 8, p. (507. Jan., 101 fi. 
 
 Application of surplus security pledged 
 for specific debt 
 
 1063. (Ala.) It is a well established 
 rule at cDniinon law that in the absence of an 
 agreement to the contrary, securities pledged 
 to a bank to secure a specified demand cannot 
 be held for other demands though against the 
 same debtor. It is owinir to such rule that 
 clauses are inserted in collateral notes makinj? 
 the provision that such collateral is not only 
 
 131
 
 1064 
 
 DIGEST OF LEGAL OPINIONS 
 
 pledf^c'd for a particular debt but for any 
 otbcr liability of tbe pledgor. Vol, 3, p. 10, 
 July, 1910. 
 
 1064. (Pa.) Tbe following clause in- 
 serted in a note is legal and can be enforced : 
 *'aud it is. bcreby agreofl tbat sucb surplus, or 
 any excess of collateral upon tins nolo, sliall 
 be applicable to any other note or claim 
 
 against beld by said bank." 
 
 Tbis form would be improved by adding a 
 provision that the collateral might be held 
 and applied upon any other note or claim 
 against the individual maker or against any 
 firm of which he is a member. Vol. 5, p. 
 169, Sept., 1912. 
 
 1065. (Pa.) A bank held a firm note 
 which was secured by collateral and also held 
 a past due note of a third person which bore 
 the indorsement of one of the firm members. 
 The firm became bankrupt and the bank, after 
 selling the collateral in satisfaction of the 
 firm debt, attempted to apply the surplus on 
 the indorsed note. Opinion: The bank can- 
 not appropriate the surplus of the collateral 
 upon the independent debt of the individual 
 member of the firm, in the absence of an 
 agreement. Vol. 1, p. 202, Dec, 1908. 
 
 1066. (Tenn.) Bank A borrowed $5,000 
 from Bank B, executing its note therefor, and 
 pledging $10,000 as collateral in good receiv- 
 ables. The note did not provide that the col- 
 lateral was to secure "this or any other in- 
 debtedness that may be incurred." Bank A 
 overdrew its account by $5,000 and became 
 bankrupt. Bank B desires to apply all the 
 proceeds of the $10,000 collateral in payment 
 of the overdraft as well as the note. Opin- 
 ion ; The collateral being pledged for a speci- 
 fic debt, Bank B cannot in the absence of an 
 agreement apply the surplus to another in- 
 debtedness. Bank B cannot claim the sur- 
 plus under the doctrine of banker's lien, be- 
 cause the collateral was not received in the 
 ordinary course of business but for a specific 
 purpose. Vol. 8, p. 252, Sept., 1915. 
 
 Bond for title given as security 
 
 1067. (Ga.) A purchased a farm from 
 B, giving him cash and notes therefor, and re- 
 ceiving from B a bond for title. A transferred 
 the bond to a bank as security for a loan. 
 After the bond and transfer had been duly 
 recorded, the bank temporarily surrendered 
 the bond to A but A wrongfully disposed of 
 it. B was notified of the transfer and the 
 recording clerk was also notified not to can- 
 cel the entry. Opinion: The bank has not 
 
 lost its security and is protected in such bond 
 as against a subsequent innocent purchaser or 
 assignee of the bond. Vol. 5, p. 103, Aug., 
 1912. 
 
 Corporate stock as collateral 
 Sec 403 
 
 1068. (N. Y.) A bank holds fifty shares 
 of common stock of an industrial corporation 
 as collateral. Some time later, without knowl- 
 edge on the part of the bank, the corporation 
 issues preferred stock to the original holder, 
 which depreciates the value of the collateral. 
 The bank seeks to protect its rights as 
 pledgee. Opinion: Where common stock of 
 an industrial corporation is pledged with a 
 bank as collateral, the bank to protect its col- 
 lateral and right to dividends should either 
 have the stock transferred or notify the cor- 
 poration of the pledge; for otherwise, if the 
 corporation without notice of the pledge, 
 issues preferred stock to the original holder 
 which depreciates the value of the collateral 
 and the latter negotiates the stock, the trans- 
 feree or pledgee thereof w^ould have a superior 
 right thereto than the original pledgee. Vol. 
 11, p. 606, May, 1919. 
 
 Enforcement of collateral notes 
 
 1069. (Iowa.) Bank loaning $250, and 
 taking as collateral an unmatured negotiable 
 note of third person for $500 is a holder for 
 value to the extent of the amount advanced 
 with interest and can enforce the collateral 
 note for that amount, free from defenses 
 available to the maker against the payee. 
 If the collateral note is not subject to defense 
 the full amount is recoverable, the bank being 
 accountable for the surplus to the pledgor. 
 Vol. 9, p. 416, Nov., 1916. 
 
 1070. (La.) X issued his negotiable 
 note of $200 payable to A, which was in- 
 dorsed to B as collateral. X paid A $100 on 
 the note, taking A's receipt, but A failed to 
 advise B to make the proper credit on the 
 note. A failed and B seeks to collect the full 
 amount from X. Opinion : Payment by X to 
 A was inefl'ective against B, who can recover 
 the full amount of the note or so much there- 
 of as will satisfy his lien. Vol. 8, p. 147, 
 Aug., 1915. 
 
 1071. (Minn.) A wholesale house de- 
 livered machinery to a retail firm, title to 
 which was to remain in the former until paid 
 for by virtue of a contract which was put on 
 record. The firm received several notes from 
 various purchasers of the machinery, which 
 
 132
 
 PLEDGE AND COLLATERAL 
 
 1078 
 
 notes it pledged as collateral security for a 
 loan from the firm's bank. The notes con- 
 tained statements to the effect that they were 
 in payment for a plow or other specified ar- 
 ticles. The borrowing firm became insolvent. 
 The bank seeks to enforce the notes and the 
 wholesale house, as owner of the machinery, 
 makes a demand on the bank for a portion 
 of the notes. Opinion: The recital in the 
 notes that they were given in payment for 
 certain articles of machinery does not affect 
 their negotiability. The notes are enforce- 
 able by the bank free from any equities and 
 the bank is entitled to the proceeds as against 
 the claim of the owner of the machinery. 
 The fact that the wholesale house held the 
 machinery under contract, which was re- 
 corded, whereby title thereto should remain 
 in the house until the machinery was paid 
 for would not affect the rights of the bank as 
 holder in due course of the collateral notes. 
 Vol. 9, p. 583, Jan., 1917. 
 
 Liberty Bond as collateral security 
 
 1072. (S. Dak.) A bank loaned its de- 
 positor $100, taking his note therefor, pay- 
 able October 23, 1918, and holding his $100 
 Liberty Bond which he purchased with the 
 money borrowed as security for the note. In 
 view of the fact that his bond is a little below 
 par, the bank seeks to hold $10 of his deposit 
 balance as additional security, while the de- 
 positor seeks to withdraw the entire bahmce. 
 Opinion: A bank which holds the unmatured 
 note of depositor secured by a Liberty Bond, 
 purchased with proceeds of note, cannot re- 
 tain a portion of depositor's balance, before 
 maturity of note, as additional security for 
 its payment, in the absence of express con- 
 tract. Vol. 10, p. 720, April, 1918. 
 
 Life insurance policy assigned as collat- 
 eral security 
 
 1073. (Mich.) The insured and the ben- 
 eficiary assigned a life insurance policy to a 
 bank as collateral. The policy contained a 
 provision that all parties must join in any 
 settlement of the policy. Opinion: Tiie bank 
 holds the policy subject to the right of the 
 insurance company to require all parties to 
 join in the settlement of the policy. Where 
 there exists a disability on tlie part of the 
 beneficiary, the rule varies as to the right of 
 the insured or the beneficiary to make a valid 
 assignment in such a case. Vol. 5, p. 592, 
 March, 1913. 
 
 Power of attorney to sell collateral 
 
 1074. (Pa.) A promissory note was 
 given with collateral security coupled with a 
 power of attorney to the holder to sell the col- 
 lateral. Before the sale the maker died. 
 Opinion: The power of sale, being an author- 
 ity coupled with an interest, is not revoked 
 by the maker's death. Vol. 7, p. 167, Sept., 
 1914. 
 
 Sale of collateral on outlawed note 
 
 1075. (N. C.) A bank held a note for 
 $300 secured liy a stoc-k certificate with 
 power of sale. The note became outlawed by 
 the Statute of Limitation.^. Tlie bank wishes 
 to sell the collateral and apply the proceeds 
 towards payment of the note in order to re- 
 vive the indebtedness. Opinion: The bank 
 has the right to sell the stock, but the note 
 once outlawed could not be revived by credit- 
 ing the proceeds on the note. Vol. 6, p. 215, 
 Sept., 1913. 
 
 Securities guaranteed by salesman 
 
 1076. (111.) The liability of a bond 
 salesman as individual guarantor of securities 
 sold where he is not interested in the securi- 
 ties beyond his profits on the sale would ex- 
 tend or be limited to the terms of his agree- 
 ment strictlv construed. A'ol. 4, p. 307, Nov., 
 1911. 
 
 What constitutes valid pledge 
 Soo -241. 101)2 
 
 1077. (Tenn.) A form of pledge of per- 
 sonal proper as security for a loan is legally 
 sufficient in Tennessee where it contains a 
 provision constituting the pledgor the agent 
 of the pledgee to retain possession and care 
 for the property as such agent. To consti- 
 tute a valid pledge there must be delivery of 
 the j)roperty to the pledgee and in some 
 states (Georgia and Kentucky for example) 
 a pledge wherein the pledgor retained posses- 
 sion as agent would be invalid ns against a 
 bona fide purchaser of the projvrty without 
 notice of the i)ledge. But in Tenncpf^ec it 
 has been held the pledgor can holil the prop- 
 erty as agent of the i)le<lgee. For form of 
 pledge sec Vol. 5. j). IdS. .\ug.. 1912. 
 
 Warehouse receipt — validity as pledge 
 
 1078. (Ariz.) A milling company own- 
 ing three warehouses issued receipts uj)on its 
 own grain and pledged tlie receipts to a bank 
 
 133
 
 1079 
 
 DIGEST OF LEGAL OPINIONS 
 
 as security I'ur a loan. In the event of tlie 
 bankruptcy of the conij)any, the bank wishes 
 to hold tiie grain as a.^^ainst the bankrupt's 
 creditors. Opinion: Warehouse receipts is- 
 sued by grain warehouseman on his own goods 
 in store are generally held invalid and are in- 
 sullicicnt security to a bank as against the 
 trustee in bankruptcy of the issuing ware- 
 houseman. An additional provision might 
 be framed in connection with the Uniform 
 Warehouse Receipts Act, when presented for 
 enactment in Arizona, which in substance 
 would validate receipts of warehousemen, 
 whether or not issued for their own grain in 
 store, upon a proper system of registry of 
 such receipts. Vol. 4, p. 4S7, Feb., 1912. 
 
 1079. (Kan.) The following note is sub- 
 mitted and the question raised as to its nego- 
 tibility and eligibility for rediscount by a 
 Federal Eeserve Bank: 
 
 " $5,000 Topeka, Kansas, 
 
 Sept. 16, 1918. 
 
 Ninety days after date we promise to 
 
 pay to the order of ourselves Five Thousand 
 Dollars at First National Bank, Topeka, 
 Value Received. Having deposited as col- 
 lateral security Warehouse Receipt No. 1721, 
 of even date covering 3,000 bushels of wheat 
 which the holder of this note is authorized 
 to sell, etc., in case of non-payment. 
 
 The A. B. Milling Company, 
 
 By John Doe, President. 
 Attest : John Roe, 
 
 Secretary. 
 Indorsements by the Company and Joe Doe, 
 President and John Roe, Secretary." 
 Opinion : A note which contains a provision 
 authorizing sale of collateral upon non-pay- 
 ment is negotiable but where the note is issued 
 by a warehouse corporation to its own order 
 and is secured by a warehouse receipt issued 
 by the same corporation it is ineligible for re- 
 discount by a Federal Reserve Bank. The 
 Federal Reserve Board has ruled that paper 
 
 secured by warehouse receipts may be redis- 
 (;ounted if otherwise eligible, Ijut the ware- 
 house receipt must be issued by a warehouse 
 which is independent of the borrower. \'ol. 
 
 11, ]K -i] 1, Oct., 1918. 
 
 1080 (Wash.) A bank loans money upon 
 the security of whiskey certificates issued by 
 the proprietor of a bonded warehouse repre- 
 senting his own whiskey. The warehouse- 
 man goes into bankruptcy. Opinion: Under 
 a recent decision the pledge of such whiskey 
 certificates is valid and protects the bank as 
 against tiie trustee in bankruj)tcy. Such 
 certificates are distinguishable from ware- 
 house receipts for grain or flour issued by a 
 warehouseman upon his own goods, pledge 
 of which is invalid as against creditors. The 
 delivery of the last stated certificates does 
 not, while that of bonded warehouse receipts 
 does, operate as delivery of the goods, suffi- 
 cient to constitute a valid pledge. Vol. 4, 
 p. 214, Oct., 1911. 
 
 1081. (Wash.) A bank loaned money 
 upon the security of warehouse receipts for 
 grain and flour, issued by the warehouseman 
 to himself. The warehouseman became 
 bankrupt. Opinion: Such receipts are in- 
 valid as against creditors and the trustee in 
 bankruptcy, and do not protect the bank. 
 Vol. 4, p. 150, Sept., 1911. 
 
 War Savings Certificates as collateral 
 security 
 
 1082. (Miss.) Several customers of a 
 bank desire to pledge their War Savings 
 Stamps as security for payment of notes given 
 for the balance of the purchase money of such 
 stamps. Opinion: W^ar Savings Certificates 
 cannot be lawfully pledged to a bank by the 
 owner whose name appears therein as col- 
 lateral security for a loan, in view of the con- 
 dition therein that the certificate is "not 
 transferable." Vol. 11, p. 170, Sept., 1918. 
 
 POST DATED CHECKS 
 
 Duty of collection 
 
 1083. (N. C.) Wliere a bank receives 
 for collection and returns a post dated check, 
 it is no part of its duty to present the same 
 for acceptance. It can either hold it, pre- 
 sent it at maturity, or, if time permits, may 
 return it at once with advice that it is not 
 yet due. Vol. 2, p. 230, Dec, 1909. 
 
 Payment of post dated checks 
 
 1084. (Ind.) It is not illegal to date a 
 check ahead but if a post dated check is paid 
 before its date, the pa3'ment is at the risk of 
 the bank. Vol. 3, p. 468, Feb., 1911. 
 
 1085. (Mo.) A bank pays a post dated 
 check and subsequently checks correctly dated 
 are presented and refused on account of in- 
 
 134
 
 POST-DATED CHECKS 
 
 1096 
 
 sufiRcient funds. Opinion: Pa\Tiient of the 
 post dated check before its date is at the risk 
 of the bank, which has no right to charge it 
 up against the customer before the due date, 
 nor to refuse checks which would be good l)ut 
 for such premature charge. Vol. 4, p. 430, 
 Jan., 1912. 
 
 1086. (N. C.) A bank paid its custom- 
 er's post dated check for $100 seven days be- 
 fore its date. When a second clieck of $3 
 was presented tlie bank refused payment be- 
 cause of insufficient funds. The customer 
 sued the bank for damages. Opinion: The 
 post dated check was not payable or charge- 
 able to the drawer's account until the day of 
 the date and if prematurely paid and charged, 
 a refusal to pay a subsequent check, good but 
 for the erroneous charge, is a wrongful dis- 
 honor. Vol. 9, p. 48, July, 1916. 
 
 1087. (Ohio.) On November 30 a bank 
 paid a check dated December 7 and after- 
 ward on the same day dishonored a check 
 dated November 29 because of "insufficient 
 funds." There would have been sufficient 
 funds but for the payment of the post dated 
 check. Opinion: The bank had no right or 
 authority to pay the post dated check before 
 the day of its date arrived, and no right to 
 refuse payment of another check where the 
 funds would have been sufficient except for 
 premature payment of the post dated check. 
 The wrongful refusal to pay the check sub- 
 jects the bank to damages recoverable by the 
 drawer, but the holder of the dishonored 
 check has no recourse upon the bank but must 
 look to the drawer and prior indorsers. Vol. 
 5, p. 523, Feb., 1913. 
 
 1088. (Tenn.) A check dated June 1 
 was paid on ^fay 31. The maker notified 
 the bank on the morning of June 1, before 
 banking hours, to stop payment. Opinion: 
 The money prematurely paid by the bank to 
 a bona fide holder of the check is non-recover- 
 able, but the bank, notwithstanding the stop 
 order before the due date, would probably 
 have the right to charge the amount to the 
 drawer's account, if the holdor had an en- 
 forceable right against the drawer. Vol. 9, 
 p. 240, Sept., 1916. 
 
 1089. (Wash.) A gave his post dated 
 check in ])ayiucnt for supplies. Yho holder 
 indorsed it for value to B, who presented it 
 on its date. Payment was refused by the 
 drawee because A had previously stopped pay- 
 ment. Opinion: The check, although post 
 dated, was negotiable before the day of its 
 date, and B wlio purchased before maturity 
 
 took an enforceable title. B had no recourse 
 upon the drawee but only upon the drawer 
 and prior indorser. Vol. 7, p. 779, April, 
 1915. 
 
 Protest of post dated checks 
 
 1090. (Ga.) A check dated the 15th of 
 the month was presented on the 12tii and 
 payment was refused. Should the check be 
 protested? Opinion: There is no legal au- 
 thority for protesting a post dated check, 
 payment of which has been refused on pre- 
 sentment before the due date. The bank on 
 which the check is drawn has no authority 
 to pay the same until the day of its date ar- 
 rives. Vol. 9, p. 496, Dec, 1916. 
 
 1091. (La.) A post dated check was re- 
 ceived by a bank for collection thirty days 
 before the due date and was protested and 
 returned in accordance witli printed advice 
 accompanying the check. The forwarding 
 bank refuses to pay the fees and contends the 
 collecting bank was in error in protesting. 
 Opinion: The drawee causing the protest can- 
 not charge protest fees. The printed advice 
 to protest should not be construed to cover a 
 post dated check before the time when the 
 check becomes payable. Vol. 5. p. 830, June, 
 1913. 
 
 1092. (Mich.) After the day of its date 
 arrives a post dated check is i)rotestable for 
 non-payment, the same as an ordinarv check. 
 Vol. 4,V 220, Oct., 1!»11. 
 
 1093. (Okla.) A post dated check is not 
 presentable until the day of its date arrives 
 and if presented before such date, it cannot 
 be protested for non-accei)tance. Vol. 5, p. 
 244, Oct., 1912. 
 
 1094. (Tenn.) A firm received a check 
 dated fifteen days after it was received, which 
 it deposited for collection. The check was 
 presented before it was due and was protested 
 by the drawee. Opinion: A j)ost dated check 
 is not payable until the day of its date arrives, 
 and a drawee bank which prematurely pro- 
 tests the post dated check of its customer does 
 so witiiout legal right and is })rol)ably liable 
 to him in damages therefor. Vol. 5. p. 829, 
 June. 1913. 
 
 1095. (Tenn.) A post dated check 
 should be held until the day of maturity, 
 and then presented and protested if not paid. 
 
 Vol. 1, p. 37"). Dec. 1011. 
 
 Set off of post dated check 
 
 1096. (Utah.) A bank piireha«ed a 
 
 135
 
 1097 
 
 DKJEST OF LECAL OPINIONS 
 
 post dated check drawn on another banlc, count in tlie purchasing bank. Opinion: The 
 
 from an indorser in due course before ma- bank j)urchasjng the check can set off tlie 
 
 turity. In due time it was returned marked drawer's dejjosit against his indebtedness 
 
 "Payment stopped," The drawer had an ac- upon the ciieck. Vol. 8, p. 327, Oct., 1915. 
 
 PRESENTMENT 
 
 Due diligence 
 
 See 386 et seq 
 
 1097. (Mont.) A bank received for col- 
 lection a check from another place on Thurs- 
 day, and presented it for payment on Satur- 
 day forenoon, Friday being a legal holiday. 
 The check was dishonored, although it could 
 liave been paid if presented on Thursday. 
 Opinion: The collecting bank was not liable 
 for not presenting the check on the day it was 
 received, unless it had information that the 
 drawee was approaching insolvency or the 
 case required extraordinary diligence on the 
 part of the bank in protecting its principal. 
 Vol. 7, p. 780, April, 1915. 
 
 Presentment over telephone 
 
 1098. (Ark.) A bank receiving a sight 
 draft on a person living three miles away tele- 
 phoned him at his home, there being no bank 
 in his town. He was reported to be absent 
 quite a distance and not being able to locate 
 him, the bank liad the item protested for 
 non-payment. Opinion: Presentment and 
 demand of payment of a sight draft over the 
 telephone is not legally sufficient and protest 
 for non-payment in such a case is unauthor- 
 ized. It has been held that as presentment 
 must be made by actual exhibition of the 
 paper or, at least, by some clear indication 
 that the paper is at hand ready to be de- 
 livered, a demand over the telephone at the 
 place specified in the instrument is insuffi- 
 cient. Vol. 10, p. 657, March, 1918. 
 
 1099. (W. Va.) A demand of payment 
 of a negotiable instrument over the telephone 
 by a notary is insufficient legally to justify a 
 protest. It requires his personal attendance 
 with the note at the place of demand, in read- 
 iness to exhibit it if required, and to receive 
 payment and surrender it if the debtor is 
 willing to pay. A^ol. 4, p. 93, Aug., 1911. 
 
 Place of presentment 
 
 See 1024 
 
 1100. (Kan.) x\n indorsed note was 
 made payable at a bank, but presentment was 
 made to the maker in person, and then pro- 
 tested. The indorser seeks to recover the 
 
 protest fees from the payee. Opinion: 
 Where an indorsed note is made payable at 
 a bank, presentment for payment must be 
 made at the specified place in order to hold 
 an indorser and where the note is not pre- 
 sented at the bank, but to the maker person- 
 ally, and then protested, the instrument is 
 not duly presented and the protest unauthor- 
 ized. Vol. 10, p. 43, July, 1917. 
 
 1101. (Miss.) A draft drawn on the 
 County Treasurer was presented to the Treas- 
 urer's depository in another town where it 
 is customary to present all drafts drawn on 
 the Treasurer. Payment was refused because 
 of "no funds in general deposit" and the 
 draft was duly protested. Opinion: The 
 presentment was sufficient and the protest for 
 non-pavment was legal and valid. Vol. 4, p. 
 219, Oct., 1911. 
 
 1102. (N. H.) A note is made payable 
 at the office of the makers at a particular 
 street address, and before maturity the 
 makers have closed their office and moved to 
 another street. Opinion: To hold an in- 
 dorser, presentment at the place specified in 
 the note would be sufficient ; but where notary 
 knows the makers are at a new address, it 
 would be safer to make a supplemental pre- 
 sentment at that place. Vol. 4, p. 434, Jan., 
 1912. 
 
 1103. (Okla.) Presentment of a draft 
 to bank in whose care, or through which, it is 
 made payable, is sufficient and authorizes 
 protest in the event of non-pa}Tnent without 
 necessity of further presentment to the 
 drawee. Vol. 3, p. 583, April, 1911. 
 
 1104. (S. C.) A draft was addressed to 
 the drawee "Jno. Jones, Jonesville, S. C, 
 care Dime Bank, Barnwell, S. C." The col- 
 lecting bank presented it at the Dime Bank. 
 Opinion: Presentment at the Dime Bank was 
 proper and sufficient. Vol. 3, p. 339, Dec, 
 1910. 
 
 Reasonable time for presentment 
 See 352 
 
 1 105. (Idaho.) A gave B a note of $100 
 payable in one year from date, bearing in- 
 terest at 10 per cent, payable annually. After 
 the expiration of a year B indorsed the note 
 
 136
 
 PRESENTMENT 
 
 [ nil 
 
 over to C for value, and one year later the 
 note is presented to A for payment and re- 
 fused. Opinion: B's indorsement of a past 
 due note was valid, making it a demand in- 
 strument. The delay of one year in demand- 
 ing payment, under the circumstances, was 
 unreasonable, and the indorser was dis- 
 charged. Vol. 4, p. 155, Sept., 1911. 
 
 1106. (Kan.) A check must be pre- 
 sented within a reasonable time, but the ex- 
 act period of time after which a check be- 
 comes stale or discredited and puts a pur- 
 chaser or a bank of payment upon inquiry, is 
 not definitely fixed by the authorities. A 
 check becomes outlawed according to the 
 Statute of Limitations of each state. But 
 there is some divergence of opinion of differ- 
 ent courts as to whether the statute begins 
 to run from the date of a check or from a 
 reasonable time after date or from a time 
 after date beginning with the end of the stat- 
 utory period. Vol. 8, p. 910, April, 191G. 
 
 1107. (Ore.) Where a check is issued 
 and delivered in the place where the drawee 
 is located, the well established rule adopted 
 by the courts is that under the Negotiable 
 Instruments Act the reasonable time for pre- 
 sentment to hold the drawer ends with the 
 next business day after delivery of the check. 
 This rule applies to a bank in which the 
 I^ayee deposits a check for collection drawn 
 upon another bank in tlie same place. There 
 is no rule which would require the collecting 
 bank to make presentment the same day of 
 deposit, in the absence of some specific in- 
 struction from its depositor so to do. Where 
 there exists a custom of presentment through 
 a clearing house in any city or town, accord- 
 ing to the rule in some courts, such method 
 is within the requirements of diligence, and 
 as illustrated in a Pennsylvania case the 
 
 drawer will remain liable, although the check 
 was not presented until the third business 
 day following delivery. But a Nebraska 
 case refused to follow this decision and re- 
 quired presentment by the payee the follow- 
 ing day. A Texas case held that the drawer 
 was discharged where there was presentment 
 through a clearing house on the third day 
 because he had not impliedly consented and 
 was entitled to have his check presented di- 
 rectly to the drawee not later tban tlie day 
 following its delivery. The payee, however, 
 who deposited the check was bound by the 
 custom by reason of his implied consent. 
 Vol. 9, p.' 746, March, 1917. 
 
 1108. (Pa.) Presentment of a note 
 payable on demand must be made within a 
 reasonable time after its issue to liold the in- 
 dorser. In determining what is reasonable 
 time, regard is to lie had to the nature of 
 the instrument, the usage of trade or busi- 
 ness, if any, with respect to such instruments, 
 and the facts of the particular case. Vol. 4, 
 p. 156, Sept., 1911. 
 
 When presentment excused 
 
 1109. (N. C.) A made his note payable 
 to the order of B and indorsed before de- 
 livery, presumably for accommodation, by 
 C. C negotiated the note to Y bank. The 
 note was not presented on the day of ma- 
 turity. Opinion: Presentment on the day of 
 maturity and notice of dishonor are required 
 to hold B and C, the indorsers, but if the in- 
 strument was made for the accommodation 
 of either B or C, and such indorser had no 
 reason to expect it would he paid if presented, 
 neither presentment nor notice is required 
 to hold such indorser liable. Vol. 8, p. 324, 
 Oct., 1915. 
 
 1110. 
 
 PROTEST 
 
 Altered check 
 (N. J.) A check, the date of 
 
 which was apparently altered, was presented 
 for payment and was refused by the drawee- 
 pinion: The safer course for the collecting 
 bank was to protest the check for non-pay- 
 ment, although such protest would not be 
 necessary if it later developed that the alter- 
 ation was not authorized and the instrument 
 was not valid. Vol. 5, p. 217, Oct., 1912. 
 
 Certificate of protest 
 (N. C.) Bank C received a de- 
 
 1111 
 
 mand draft witli 
 
 )ill of lading for collection 
 
 and caused the item to be protested. The 
 notices were drawn regularly by one of the 
 clerks of C bank and signed hy him in the 
 name of the cashier of C hank who is the 
 notary. The forwarding liank refused to pay 
 the protest fee, saying that the notices and 
 protest, altliough signed in the name of the 
 cashier and notary, are not in his handwrit- 
 ing. Opinion: A certificate of protest signed 
 in the name of the notary hy his clerk is of 
 doubtful validity. The Negotiable Instru- 
 ments .\ct provides that the protest "must be 
 under the hand and seal of the notary making 
 it.'' The law rt><iiiir«^-: thnt demand and 
 
 137
 
 1112 
 
 UKJEIST OF LK(iAl. OiMXlONS 
 
 notice must I)e Ity the notary personally, and 
 eannot be delcf^'ated to a elcrk, except that a 
 lew eases reco;;nize the custom for a clerk to 
 act, hut the validity of the custom is uncer- 
 tain. Vol. 7, p. 493, Jan., 1915. 
 
 1112. (111.) Tn Illinois the certificate 
 of protest of a foreign notary is competent 
 evidence of the dishonor of a forci;j;n hill of 
 exchange by virtue of the common law rule; 
 hut the certificate of a foreign notary as to 
 demand and notice in case of a promissory 
 note is not competent evidence and addition- 
 al legislation is necessary to effect this. The 
 certificate of protest of a notary within the 
 state is competent evidence of demand, dis- 
 honor and notice in case of inland hills, notes 
 and checks by virtue of Sections ]2 and 13 
 (unrepealed) of tlie Act of 187-2, notwith- 
 standing the repeal of Sections 10 and 11 of 
 that act bv tlie Negotiable Instruments 
 Law. Vol. 3, p. 516, March, 1911. 
 
 Checks payable in one state and negoti- 
 ated in another 
 
 See 335, 330, 1148 
 
 1113. (S. Dak.) A check, as shown on 
 its face, was drawn and payable in South Da- 
 kota, and was issued and negotiated in Illi- 
 nois. Opinion: Protest of the check is per- 
 missible but is not required by the Negotiable 
 Instruments Act, even though the check was 
 issued in one state and negotiated in another. 
 Vol. 6, p. 438, Dec, 1913. 
 
 Payment of protested check 
 
 See 1121, 1154, 1155, 1156 
 
 1114. (Ala.) A check was presented and 
 protested for non-payment on account of in- 
 sufficient funds. Later, the bank when in 
 funds, without express instructions from the 
 drawer, paid the check with the notary's fees. 
 Opinion: The bank in paying the check acted 
 at its peril and should have refused payment. 
 Vol. 7, p. 688, March, 1915. 
 
 Drawee's duty of protest 
 
 1115. (Miss.) A authorized B to sign 
 a check drawn on C bank. The check signed 
 "B by A" was presented through the clearing 
 house and the drawee, ignorant of A's author- 
 ity, refused payment and protested the item 
 because of the signature. Opinion: The 
 drawee rightfully refused payment and the 
 check being genuine and not a forgery, its 
 protest "was justifiable. The presenting bank 
 rather than the drawee, was the proper one 
 to hand the check over to the notary for pro- 
 test. Vol. 2, p. 333, Feb., 1910. 
 
 1116. (Wis.) A check for $160 was 
 drawn, f)ayal)le by A to B, who deposited it 
 for cdlh'ction. The check was forwarded di- 
 rectly to the draw('(! bank, where payment was 
 stop[)ed by A. The drawee questions the ad- 
 visability of protesting the check for non- 
 payment. Opinion: The drawee would not 
 be responsible in omitting protest, as protest 
 is not necessary in this case, there being no 
 contingent j)arti('s to be held liable. Vol. 8, 
 p. 805, JIarch, 1916. 
 
 1117. (V/is.) A drawee bank which re- 
 ceives a check for collection acts in a dual 
 capacity, (1) as agent of the drawer to pay 
 or refuse payment, (2) as agent of the holder 
 to collect and remit or to take the necessary 
 steps upon dishonor to hold parties contin- 
 gently liable. Vol. 8, p. 805, March, 1916. 
 
 Duty of collecting bank 
 S€e 395, 306, 113!), 1145 
 
 1118. (La.) The payee of a check de- 
 posits it in his Ijank for collection and before 
 the item is presented goes to the town of the 
 drawee and asks the latter if it will pay the 
 same when it comes through the regular 
 channels. The drawee promises to hold the 
 check awaiting a deposit by the drawer, there 
 being insufficient funds at the time. When 
 the check was presented, the drawee returned 
 it unpaid, because of insufficient funds, with- 
 out protesting it. The payee wants to hold 
 the drawee for not protesting. Opinion: 
 Drawee bank not liable to payee of check for 
 omission to protest before returning unpaid 
 because of insufficient funds. In this case 
 the check was owned by the payee, and there 
 was no discharge of parties contingently liable 
 and no loss resulted to the payee from the 
 bank's omission to protest. Bank's promise 
 to hold check awaiting deposit by drawer is 
 not binding on bank, not being an acceptance 
 nor supported by a consideration. Vol. 10, 
 p. 124, Aug., 1917. 
 
 1119. (Okla.) A collecting bank is 
 bound by law to exercise reasonaljle diligence 
 in making presentment and taking the neces- 
 sary steps upon dishonor to hold parties con- 
 tingently liable upon the paper. In case of 
 a small check under $10 payable in the same 
 state, in the absence of instructions it might 
 be proper to omit protest and merely give 
 due notice of dishonor. Vol. 4, p. 153, Sept., 
 1911. 
 
 Protest fees 
 See 013, 1091 
 
 1120. (Ala.) A note was payable to a 
 firm at a bank in Alabama. The payees sent 
 
 138
 
 PROTEST 
 
 1129 
 
 the note to the hauk for collection, and be- 
 cause payment was not promptly made the 
 note was protested. The bank claimed that 
 it is entitled to the amount expended for pro- 
 test fee. Opinion: It is doubtful if the bank 
 is entitled to the protest fees, as in an action 
 on the note by the payees a^rainst the maker 
 it is not necessary to prove demand and notice 
 and the certificate of protest would have no 
 utility as an item of evidence. Vol. 6, p. 436, 
 Dec, 1913. 
 
 1121, (Wash.) A depositor before leav- 
 ing town withdrew his balance at his bank, 
 and when a check in the sum of $38.50 was 
 presented it was protested for non-payment. 
 Later a deposit was made more than enough 
 to cover the check and protest fees, and the 
 bank paid the check but refused to pay the 
 fees. Opinion: The bank without express in- 
 structions is not authorized to pay the protest 
 fees on the protested check of the customer. 
 Vol. 3, p. 588, April, 1911. See 1114, 1154, 
 1155, 1156. 
 
 Protest for better security 
 
 1122. (Miss.) Section 158 of the Ne- 
 gotiable Instruments Act provides : "Where 
 the acceptor has been adjudged a bankrupt or 
 an insolvent, or has made an assignment for 
 the benefit of creditors, before the bill ma- 
 tures, the holder may cause the bill to be pro- 
 tested for better security against the drawer 
 and indorsers." Section 161 of the Act pro- 
 vides: "Where a bill of exchange has been 
 protested for dishonor by non-acceptance or 
 protested for better security, and is not over- 
 due, any person not being a party already 
 liable thereon may, with the consent of the 
 holder, intervene and accept the bill supra 
 protest for the honor of any party liable there- 
 on, or for the honor of the person for whose 
 account the bill is drawn." The utility of 
 this kind of protest seems to lie in the fact 
 that, wlien the acceptor becomes a bankrupt, 
 the causing of protest for better security and 
 giving of notice thereof to the drawer and 
 prior indorsers, will enable him or tlieni to 
 procure some friend or correspondent to ac- 
 cept the bill, supra protest, for their honor. 
 The Negotiable Instruments Act, while au- 
 thorizing a protest for better security, fails 
 to specify the requirements of such a protest. 
 It would seem that a certificate, made under 
 the hand and seal of the Tiotary, conlniniTig 
 a copy of the bill or liaving the original bill 
 annexed tliereto, which sboidd recite (foHow- 
 ing as closely as possible the language of the 
 Act) that the acceptor has been adjudged 
 
 bankrupt before the bill has matured, for 
 which cause the bill is protested for better 
 security against the drawers and indorsers, 
 would be sufficient. Vol, 9, p. 494, Dec., 
 1916. 
 
 Forged checks 
 
 1123. (Ind.) A check bearing a forged 
 signature or one made without authority of 
 the j)erson whose signature it purports to be, 
 is not a valid negotiable instrument, but a 
 void document, and it is not properlv protest- 
 able. Vol. 9, p. 414, Nov., 1916. 
 
 1124. (Fla.) Protest of a forged check 
 is not necessary ; the indorser thereon 
 warrants that the check is genuine to all 
 holders in due course, and is liable without 
 demand, protest or notice. Vol. 2, p. 332, 
 Feb., 1910. 
 
 1125. (Wis.) A forged check is not 
 properly protestable nor is demand and notice 
 of dishonor necessary to hold an indorser who 
 is liable to an indorsee as warrantor of genu- 
 ineness. An agent holding such paper is duly 
 diligent by giving notice of the forgery with- 
 in reasonable time. Vol. 5, p. 760, Mav. 
 1913. 
 
 Formal protest 
 
 1126. (N. J.) Formal protest as distin- 
 guished from demand and notice of dishonor 
 is not required to hold indorser unless the 
 instrument is foreign bill of exchange. Vol. 
 6, p. 376, Nov., 1913. 
 
 1127. (Wash.) The object of permit- 
 ting j)rotcst of inland liills is to enal)le the 
 holder to obtain a convenient means of prov- 
 ing dishonor in case he is comindled to bring 
 suit on the paper, as the notary's certificate 
 of protest is admitted as prima facie evidence 
 to prove dishonor and obviate the necessity of 
 calling witness and proving that fact bv other 
 evidence. Vol. 4, p. 151, Sept., 1911. 
 
 1128. (Wis.) Protest is only required 
 in case of foreign bills of exchange, but is per- 
 missible on inland bills and checks, and the 
 drawer and indorser are liable for the protest 
 fee. Vol. 4, p. 617, April, 1912. 
 
 Indorsement of check incorrect 
 
 1129. (Pa.) To authorize the protest of 
 a check, it must be "duly"' presented for pay- 
 ment. The holder under an "incorrect in- 
 dorsement'' is not entitled to demand pay- 
 ment ; hence there can be no due presentment 
 of such a check and no dishonor by non-pay- 
 ment which would authorize a protest. Vol. 
 4, p. 307, Nov., 1911. 
 
 139
 
 1130 
 
 DIGEST OF LEGAL OPINIONS 
 
 1130. (Wash.) A check sif^nicd l)y Jolm 
 Doc in favor of Will .loiies, guardian of Elsie 
 Smith, was indorsed by Will Jones only. On 
 presentment of the cheek payment was re- 
 fused because of the incomplete indorsement. 
 The collectinu: baid< then protested the check. 
 Opinion: The question is an nnccrtain one 
 wlielhcr the indorsement of "Will Jones" 
 without addiiif]^ his representative capacity is 
 a proper indorsement. Where a clieck is pre- 
 sented bearing an improper or defective in- 
 dorsement of the payee and payment is re- 
 fused for that reason, there is no due present- 
 ment and no dishonor which justified protest. 
 Tol. fi, p. 629, March, 1914. 
 
 Indorsement on instrument lacking 
 
 1131. (Ga.) Where a check is presented 
 by a third person without the indorsement of 
 the payee and payment is refused for that 
 reason, such refusal is not a dishonor which 
 would justify a protest. To constitute dis- 
 honor it is essential that there be due pre- 
 sentment of the check and it cannot be said 
 that a check without indorsement of the 
 payee and presented by a third person is duly 
 presented because the payee's indorsement 
 which is the order and authority to the bank 
 to pav the holder, is lacking. Vol. 9, p. 496, 
 Dec.,l916. 
 
 1132. (Ga.) When a check, payable to 
 order, is presented by a holder other than the 
 payee, lacking the payee's indorsement, there 
 is no due presentment and protest thereof 
 cannot be properly made, irrespective of 
 whether or not there are sufficient funds. 
 YoL 3, p. 149, Sept., 1910. See 669. 
 
 1133. (Kan.) A grain dealer in Okla- 
 homa drew a draft on a firm in Kansas. He 
 attached thereto a bill of lading and depos- 
 ited it in his bank for credit. On present- 
 ment through the Kansas City Clearing 
 House, payment was refused because the grain 
 dealer failed to indorse the bill of lading. 
 The question was raised whether the draft 
 should have been protested. Opinion: In the 
 absence of instructions not to protest, the 
 draft should have been protested upon dis- 
 honor. Vol. 6, p. 374, Nov., 1913. 
 
 1134. (Okla.) A check payable to order 
 was presented without the indorsement of 
 the payee. It was protested and returned 
 for indorsement. Opinion: The protest was 
 not justifiable. The refusal to pay a check 
 presented by a subsequent holder because it 
 lacks the indorsement of the payee is not a 
 
 dishonor. Vol. 4, p. 684, May, 1012. See 
 669. 
 
 Inland and foreign bills of exchange 
 distinguished 
 
 S.'<; IMS 
 
 1135. (Tenn.) A check drawn and pay- 
 able in the same state is an iidand bill of ex- 
 change and not a foreign bill, although the 
 payee is located in another state, and protest 
 uf)on dishonor, while customary, is not indis- 
 j)ensable as in case of a foreign bill of ex- 
 change. Vol. 6, p. 818, June, 1914. 
 
 1136. (S. Dak.) A check which origi- 
 nates and is payable in the same state, there- 
 fore called an inland bill of exchange, through 
 the course of clearing happens to be indorsed 
 in another state. Under the Negotiable In- 
 struments Law which does not require protest 
 in case of non-payment of inland bills of ex- 
 change, it is asked if the check in question 
 has become a foreign bill of exchange which 
 would require such protest. Opinion: A 
 check drawn in one state upon a bank in the 
 same state does not become a foreign bill of 
 exchange because indorsed in another state, 
 so as to make protest necessary to preserve 
 recourse upon parties contingently liable. 
 Vol. 10, p. 467, Dec, 1917. 
 
 Instructions to protest 
 See 395, 396 
 
 1137. (La.) A bank received a draft for 
 collection, accompanied by a letter "We en- 
 close for collection and credit. Items marked 
 X no protest." The bank protested the draft 
 (not marked X) but the sending bank re- 
 fused to pay the protest fee. Opinion: The 
 collecting bank was justified in protesting the 
 draft and could collect the protest fees. Vol. 
 5, p. 102, Aug., 1912. 
 
 1138. (Miss.) A collecting bank re- 
 ceived a check upon which was stamped "no 
 protest," and the letter enclosing the item in- 
 structed the same to be protested. Opinion: 
 The safer course for the collecting bank was 
 to protest. Vol. 3, p. 521, Marcli, 1911. 
 
 1139. (Pa.) A promissory note con- 
 tained two indorsers for value, only the first 
 of whom has waived over his signature pro- 
 test and notice of protest. On the face of 
 the note was the written instruction "protest 
 if not paid," The note was received by the 
 collecting bank five days after maturity and 
 was protested after the maker stated his in- 
 ability to pay. The bank did not know the 
 
 140
 
 PEOTEST 
 
 [1151 
 
 circumstances of the delay in presentment. 
 Opinion: Had the instrument been a foreign 
 bill of exchange, the collecting bank would 
 have been justified in making protest to safe- 
 guard the interest of its principal, in case the 
 delay was excusable. In the case of a prom- 
 issory note, while formal protest is not essen- 
 tial, it is a convenient means of proving dis- 
 honor, and as the note contained tlie positive 
 instruction "protest if not paid" the collect- 
 ing bank was justified in assuming that the 
 principal desired the protest made and knew 
 of facts which would justify the delay and 
 make the protest efficacious. Vol. 8, p. 145, 
 Aug., 1915. 
 
 Instrument must be negotiable 
 
 1140. (Ala.) A county warrant pro- 
 viding for payment of money out of a par- 
 ticular fund is not negotiable under the Ne- 
 gotiable Instruments Law and is not subject 
 to protest. Vol. 7, p. 304, Nov., 1914. 
 
 1141. (111.) A check is drawn on a bank 
 that does not exist. Question was raised as 
 to the legality of protesting such an instru- 
 ment. Opinion: A check drawn on a bank 
 that does not exist is a negotiable instrument 
 and is subject to protest under the Negotia- 
 able Instruments Act. Vol, 10, p. 595, Feb., 
 1918. 
 
 1142. (Kan.) By agreement with its 
 customer a bank stamped its checks "payable 
 in Kansas City Exchange." The holder of 
 such cliecks demanded cash, but only Kansas 
 City Exchange was tendered. The question 
 was raised whether the holder could refuse 
 the tender of exchange and protest the check 
 if not paid in money. Opinion: The checks 
 are not payable in cash but in drafts on Kan- 
 sas City, and the holder cannot have the 
 checks protested. All doubt as to whether 
 the checks would be payable in money would 
 be removed if the stamp read : "Payable by 
 the drawee's draft on Kansas City." Vol. 6, 
 p. 95, Aug., 1913. 
 
 1143. (N. Y.) A check on a savings 
 bank payable "on presentation of the pass- 
 book" was presented for payment unaccom- 
 panied by the book. The bank refused pay- 
 ment on the ground that the presentation 
 was incomplete and did not think it necessary 
 to protest tlie chock. Opinion: The check 
 was not negotiable and therefore not subject 
 to protest. Vol. 6, p. 210, Sept., 1913. 
 
 1144. (N. Y.) An undated negotiable 
 check was presented for payment at a savings 
 
 bank. The bank protested the item for non- 
 payment because of non-production of the 
 pass-book. Opinion: The check was properly 
 protestable and its negotiable character was 
 not affected by the fact that it was undated. 
 Vol. 6, p. 94, Aug., 1913. 
 
 1145. (Ohio.) A bank received for col- 
 lection a draft payable "at sight on arrival of 
 car," together with instructions to protest 
 upon non-payment. The draft was presented 
 and refused. The bank wired non-payment 
 but did not protest. Opinion: A draft pay- 
 able "at sight on arrival of car" is non-nego- 
 tiable, and is not properly subject to protest. 
 The bank exercised due diligence. Vol. 4, 
 p. 305, Nov., 1911. 
 
 1146. (Wis.) A check payable to "John 
 Smith or bearer" was stamped across its face 
 "non-negotiable counter check." The check 
 was presented through the Clearing House by 
 an indorsee of the payee and the drawee bank 
 refused payment. Opinion: The bank's re- 
 fusal to pay was justified and the check was 
 not properly protestable. Vol. 6, p. 376, 
 Nov., 1913. 
 
 Protest not abolished in any state 
 
 1147. (Pa.) The protest of negotiable 
 instruments has not been abolished in any 
 state. Vol. 5, p. 170, Sept., 1912. 
 
 Protest permissible but not compulsory 
 
 1148. (Del.) Where a man in Delaware 
 
 gave his check drawn on a bank in Delaware 
 and the payee deposits the item in a bank in 
 New York, protest for non-payment is per- 
 missible but not compulsory, because it is not 
 a foreign bill of exchange. Vol, 5, p, 450, 
 Jan., 1913. See 335, 336, 1113, 
 
 1149. (Va,) In the case of promissory 
 notes, due demand and notice of dishonor 
 without protest are all that is necessary to 
 hold the indorser, although protest is of 
 course permissible. Vol. 2, p. 232, Dec, 
 1909. 
 
 Persons authorized to make protest 
 
 1150. (La.) A statute in Louisiana au- 
 thorizes Justices of the Peace to make pro- 
 tests of negotiable instruments in default of 
 notaries and parish recorders, provided the 
 protest is witnessed by two persons of the 
 same parish. Vol. 5, p, 24, July, 1912, 
 
 1151. (111.) A notary who is an em- 
 ployee of a Federal Reserve Bank protests 
 paper owned by the bank or held by it for col- 
 
 141
 
 1152 
 
 DIO.EST OF LEGAL OPINIONS 
 
 lection and receives the fee tlierefor. Opin- 
 ion: Siicli ])r()test is not prohibited by Section 
 22 of the Federal Reserve Act. A^ol. 7, p. 
 381, Dec, 1914. 
 
 Place of protest 
 
 1152. (La.) A drawee hank in a town 
 returned to a city l)ank a clicck nnpaid he- 
 cause of insulHcient funds, but failed to have 
 it protested because there was no notary in 
 the place. The officer of the drawee bank 
 went to the city bank and caused the check 
 to be protested. Opinion: The protest was 
 invalid because it Avas not protested at the 
 place where it was dishonored. The check 
 could have been protested in the town where 
 payable by "any respectable resident of the 
 place in the presence of two or more credible 
 witnesses." Vol. 4, p. 156, Sept., 1911. 
 
 1153. (Tex.) A draft was drawn on 
 John Smith, and erroneously addressed to 
 Galveston, Texas, at which city John Smith 
 was not located. The draft was protested for 
 non-payment. Opinion: The protest of the 
 draft at Galveston, which was the place ad- 
 dressed, was proper to preserve the liability 
 of the drawer and indorser. Vol. 6, p. 212, 
 Sept., 1913. 
 
 Second protest of check 
 
 See 1114, 1121 
 
 1154. (Ark.) A check which had been 
 protested for insufficient funds was presented 
 for payment a second time by the holder w^hen 
 the funds were sufficient. Opinion: The 
 safer course is for the bank to refuse payment 
 in absence of the drawer's express instruc- 
 tions and to suggest that the holder procure 
 a new check. Vol. 5, p. 670, April, 1913. 
 
 1155. (Ga.) There is no efficacy in pro- 
 testing a check a second time after it has 
 once been protested for non-payment, and is 
 again presented with demand for payment 
 which is refused. Such instrument has al- 
 ready been dishonored and the liability of the 
 parties fixed by the first protest. Vol. 9, p. 
 496, Dec, 1916. 
 
 1156. (Ind.) A bank received for pre- 
 sentment a protested check with protest fees 
 added, with instructions to protest if not 
 paid. Opinion: There is no justification for 
 protesting the check a second time. Vol. 7, 
 p. 1000, June, 1915. 
 
 Signature on instrument lacking 
 
 1157. (111.) By agreement between a 
 bank and its depositor, a check requires two 
 
 signatures to authorize payment. The' bank 
 refuses to pay because one of such signatures 
 is missing and incpiires as to the legality and 
 )»r()priety of protesting the check. Opinion: 
 To authorize or justify a protest the instru- 
 7nent must be "dishonored" and one of the 
 essentials to constitute dishonor is that the 
 instrument must be "duly presented." In 
 this case it would be held to he a genuine ne- 
 gotiable instrument duly presented and pro- 
 test would be justifiable and valid. Vol. 9, 
 p. 495, Dec, 1916. 
 
 Stopped check 
 
 1158. (Md.) Where payment of a check 
 has been stopped such countermand would 
 not excuse presentment and notice to the in- 
 dorser or protest in case the check is a foreign 
 bill of exchange. Vol. 1, p. 406, May, 1909. 
 
 1159. (Va.) A bank received an order 
 from its customer not to pay his check of 
 $143.40. The check in question was duly 
 protested at the request of the bank which 
 mailed it for payment. The depositor 
 claims that the check should not have been 
 protested, that his credit has been injured 
 and refuses to pay the protest fees. Opin- 
 ion: When a customer orders payment of 
 his check stopped, it is the duty of the bank 
 to refuse payment and it may properly cause 
 protest to he made at the request of the 
 holder. Vol. 11, p. 485, March, 1919. 
 
 Time of protest 
 
 See 660 
 
 1160. (Ark.) A bank received for col- 
 lection a note, payment of which was extended 
 one week. The makers defaulted in payment 
 and the bank protested the note. The owner 
 of the note refused to pay the protest fees, 
 claiming that the proper time of protest was 
 the date of original maturity. Opinion: 
 Where there is a valid extension of time of 
 payment of a promissory note, the date of ex- 
 piration of the extension and not the date of 
 original maturity is the proper time of pro- 
 test. Vol. (!, p. 96, Aug., 1913. 
 
 1161. (Ga.) A bank check can be pro- 
 tested inmiediately upon presentment and re- 
 fusal to pay and it is not necessary for the 
 holder to wait until the close of banking hours 
 before handing it to a notary for protest. 
 Vol. 7, p. 384, Dec, 1914. 
 
 1162. (La.) A check dishonored five 
 minutes after the opening hour of a bank 
 may be protested immediately and it is not 
 necessary to wait until closing time. Vol. 2, 
 p. 537, June, 1910. 
 
 142
 
 PROTEST 
 
 1173 
 
 1163. (Miss.) A check may be protested 
 as soon as dishonored. Vol. 3, p. 202, Oct., 
 1910. 
 
 1164. (N. J.) A note payable at the 
 place of business of the maker was presented 
 for payment at 3 o'clock on the day it fell 
 due. The note was protested for non-pay- 
 ment at that time, although the place of bus- 
 iness kept open until 6 o'clock. It is claimed 
 that the note should have been held the whole 
 day before presenting it. Opinion: The 
 note can be protested for non-payment before 
 the closing hour of the day of maturity. 
 Vol. 3, p. 73G, June, 1911. 
 
 Note: Tlie above is supported by several de- 
 cisions; but in German-American Bank v. Milli- 
 man, 31 Misc. (N. Y.) 87, it was held that a note 
 payable at a bank, presented and refu^<ed payment 
 during banking hours, should not be ])rotested 
 until tlie close of banking hours because the 
 maker had the whole of tlie day in which to pay 
 and the note was not dishonored until tiie end of 
 the day. 
 
 1165. (N. Y.) A check given in pay- 
 ment of a note was presented on the following 
 day and payment was refused because of "in- 
 sufficient funds." The holder still has the note 
 in his possession and wishes to protest the 
 same. Opinion: Although the case has never 
 been decided, probably a valid protest of the 
 note a day after its maturity could be made, 
 because the note would not be regarded as dis- 
 honored until the check given as conditional 
 payment was dishonored. Vol. 5, p. 829, 
 June, 1913. 
 
 1166. (N. Y.) A check is presented and 
 dishonored on Saturday forenoon. Opinion: 
 Protest should be made on Saturday, and the 
 check should not be held over without pro- 
 test until the following Monday. Vol. 4, p. 
 685, May, 1912. 
 
 1167. (N. Dak.) Protest of a check 
 must be made on dav of dishonor unless delay 
 excused. Vol. 3, p." 202, Oct., 1910. 
 
 1168. (Ohio.) Where a check is pre- 
 sented and refused payment, it is not neces- 
 sary for the notary to wait until the close 
 of banking hours, but protest may be made 
 immediately. The drawer, however, has the 
 right to tender payment to holder of the 
 amount and protest fee at any time during 
 the day. Although the point has not been 
 specifically decided, it would seem that a 
 tender to the notary, the same day, of the 
 amount due with protest fees, while he still 
 retains possession of the protested instrument 
 would be a valid tender, and that upon such 
 tender the drawer could demand a surrender 
 of the instrument. Vol. 9, p. 653, Feb., 
 1917. 
 
 1169. (Va.) A check for $100 was pre- 
 sented at a bank at ten o'clock in the morn- 
 ing and was immediately protested for non- 
 payment because of no funds. Before the 
 close of banking hours on the same day the 
 bank received funds and notified the holder 
 that it would pay the check without the pro- 
 test fees. Opinion: The check having been 
 lawfully protested at ten o'clock, the holder 
 was entitled to recover the fees in addition 
 to the face of the check. In the absence of 
 instructions from the maker, the better course 
 for the bank is to leave the matter for direct 
 adjustment between the parties. Vol. 6, p. 
 274, Oct., 1913. 
 
 Waiver of protest 
 See 10:j4 ct *•<•(/ 
 
 1170. (Ala.) A note contains on its face 
 above the signature a provision that "the 
 makers and indorsers waive demand, protest 
 and notice of protest." Opinion: The pro- 
 vision is binding on all the indorsers and dis- 
 penses with the necessity of those steps to 
 preserve their liability. Vol. G, p. 36, July, 
 1913. 
 
 1171. (Cal.) The clause in an indorsed 
 note "this note subject to privilege of one re- 
 newal for like period" is an implied waiver 
 of demand and notice of protest by the in- 
 dorser at least until the expiration of the ex- 
 tended period, and by later cases also waives 
 those steps at the end of the period of exten- 
 sion. It would be better to have an express 
 waiver of protest in the note to avoid all 
 question. Vol. 9, p. 240, Sept., 1916. 
 
 1172. (Kan.) A bank has in its files 
 certain notes indorsed by its customer "pay- 
 ment guaranteed, ]irotest waived.'' In case 
 of default in payment, the bank seeks to know 
 whether it must exhaust the security of the 
 maker before recovering from the indorser. 
 Opinion: Where the payee of a note transfers 
 it l)y indorsing "payment giiaranteod, protest 
 waived" this, according to the weight of au- 
 thority, is an indorsement in the commercial 
 sense, under which an innocent purchaser for 
 value before maturity becomes a holder in due 
 course with right to enforce against the maker 
 free from defense and with immediate re- 
 course upon the indorser upon dishonor at 
 maturity. Vol. 10, p. 594, Feb., 1918. 
 
 1173. (Minn.) The Negotiable Instru- 
 ments Act provides that a waiver of protest 
 is a waiver of presentment and notice of dis- 
 honor as well as of formal protest. Where 
 a note contains a clause "the drawer and in- 
 dorsers severally waive protest and notice of 
 protest," such waiver embodied in the instru- 
 
 14.3
 
 117H 
 
 DIGEST OF LEGAL OPINIONS 
 
 ment itself is binding on the indorscrs. An 
 accommodation maker of a note is not entitled 
 to notice of dishonor, but an accommodation 
 indorsor, in tlio absence of a waiver, is so en- 
 titled. Vol. G, p. 575, Feb., 15)14. 
 
 1174. (Miss.) A bank received for col- 
 lection a note containin^]^ the followinpj waiver 
 printed on its face: "The drawers and in- 
 dorscrs severally waive presentment for pay- 
 ment, protest and notice of protest and non- 
 payment of this note." No instructions were 
 given as to protest. Opinion: The proper 
 course for the collecting bank was to omit 
 protest. A^ol. 5, p. 378, Dec, 1912. 
 
 1175. (Pa.) The payee of a note in- 
 dorses it as follows: "We hereby waive de- 
 mand, protest and notice of non-payment of 
 the within note. John Doe Co., John Doe, 
 President, William Doe, Secretary." The 
 holder is not certain whether the above con- 
 
 stitutes both a waiver of protest and an in- 
 dorsement, or is a waiver of protest only. 
 Opinion: Where the payee of a note indorses 
 the same by signing his name under a waiver 
 of prot(!st, such indorsement operates both as 
 a waiver of protest and as an indorsement 
 transferring title. Vol. 10, p. 311, Oct., 
 1017. 
 
 1176. (W. Va.) The following waiver 
 of protest, "For value received here- 
 by guarantee the payment of the within note 
 and any renewal of the same, and hereby 
 waive protest, demand and notice of non- 
 payment thereof," was rubber stamped on the 
 back of an old note and attached to a renewal 
 note containing no such waiver. Opinion: 
 The waiver on the original note also consti- 
 tuted a waiver by the indorser of demand, 
 protest and notice of the renewal. Vol. 8, 
 p. 70G, Feb., 1916. 
 
 SET OFF 
 
 Collection proceeds set off against 
 bankrupt 
 
 1177. (Ga.) A bank received from its 
 customer notes deposited for collection at 
 a time when bankruptcy was not contemplated 
 by the customer. After the customer went 
 into bankruptcy, the notes were collected and 
 the bank applied the proceeds of the notes 
 upon a claim it held against the customer. 
 Opinion: The bank had a right to set off the 
 proceeds of the notes deposited for collection 
 at a time when bankruptcy was not contem- 
 plated and collected after the bankruptcy. 
 Vol. 7, p. 494, Jan., 1915. 
 
 Consent of depositor required in 
 Louisiana 
 
 1178. (La.) John Doe deposited funds 
 in his bank on the same day upon which his 
 note held by it became due. He had been 
 carrying the note from year to year for four 
 years, having it renewed each year. The 
 bank without Doe's consent charged the note 
 to his account, and refused to honor his 
 checks, whereupon Doe brings suit. Opin- 
 ion: Under the rule generally prevailing a 
 bank has a right to set off a matured debt 
 against a customer's account without his con- 
 sent, but in Louisiana a special rule prevails 
 that the bank is not authorized to apply a cus- 
 tomers deposit to payment of his debts, ex- 
 cept there is a special mandate from the de- 
 positor or agreement or course of dealing so 
 authorizing. Vol. 11, p. 276, Nov., 1918. 
 
 Consent of depositor unnecessary 
 
 1179. (Del.) A bank owned its custom- 
 er's note of $100 due at the bank August 5th. 
 On that date the customer had $100 to his 
 credit at the bank. Opinion: The bank had 
 the right at the maturity of the note to charge 
 it up to his account without first notifying 
 him or obtaining his consent. Vol. 2, p. 73, 
 Aug., 1909. 
 
 1180. (Miss.) A bank held collateral 
 security for two items of indebtedness of one 
 of its depositors who had an account with 
 the bank. The bank applied the deposit to 
 one of the debts before it had matured, re- 
 ducing the balance to $90. A check for $100 
 was presented after the debts had become due 
 and was refused. Opinion: The bank had a 
 right at any time to offset any matured in- 
 debtedness owing by the depositor against his 
 credit without prior resort to any collateral 
 security held by it and without first obtaining 
 the consent of the depositor. (A few states, 
 not Mississippi,) require prior exhaustion of 
 collateral. At the time the check for $100 was 
 presented, the bank owed the depositor $90 
 and was justified in refusing pavment. Vol. 
 8, p. 1101, June, 1916. See 1183 et seq. 
 
 1181. (N. J.) Bank A discounted and 
 became owner of a note drawn by its customer 
 Smith in favor of Jones, made payable to 
 Bank B, where Smith also keeps an account. 
 The note was protested at maturity. Opin- 
 ion: Bank A has the right to charge up the 
 note against Smith's account without special 
 
 144
 
 SET OFF 
 
 1188 
 
 instructions from Smith, although he should 
 be notified that the note has been so charged 
 up. Vol. 3, p. 736, June, 1911. 
 
 County warrant set off against deposit 
 of county 
 
 1182. (Ga.) A bank in Georgia pur- 
 chased certain county orders or scripts, being 
 the matured obligations of the county, drawn 
 against the county treasurer by the board of 
 county commissioners. It was the practice 
 of the bank to cash these orders and hold them 
 until the end of the month, when the treas- 
 urer would give his check on the account to 
 take them up. Upon going out of office, at 
 the time the office of treasurer was abolished, 
 he refused to give his check taking up the 
 orders that had accumulated, but instead gave 
 a check for the entire balance to be used in 
 the new county depository. The bank seeks 
 to charge the said scripts to the treasurer's 
 account, before his balance check is presented. 
 Opinion: Where a bank purchased county 
 orders upon the county treasurer under an 
 arrangement by which, at the end of the 
 month, the treasurer would pay such orders 
 by his check upon the county deposit held by 
 the bank, the latter, upon the treasurer's fail- 
 ure so to do, would probably be held to have 
 a right to set off the county orders, as a ma- 
 tured indebtedness owing it by the county 
 against the deposit. Vol. 10, p. 203, Sept., 
 1917. 
 
 Debt protected by collateral 
 
 See 1180 
 
 1183. (Cal.) A bank in California 
 owned a past due note for $500, drawn by its 
 depositor who had a balance of $1,000 with 
 the bank. At maturity of the note the maker 
 had refused to pay. Opinion: Under the law 
 in California the bank has a right to apply 
 the maker's deposit upon his unpaid note at 
 maturity unless it holds security for the in- 
 debtedness. This right also extends to a 
 note of the depositor purchased by the bank 
 from an indorser. Where a note has been 
 discounted for an indorser's benefit, his de- 
 posit may be api)lied in payment at the bank's 
 option. 'Vol. 8, p. 910, April, 1916. 
 
 1184. (Cal.) A bank holds a past due 
 note of its customer in favor of the l)aiik. 
 The customer's account is sufficiently large 
 to meet the indebtedness. Opinion: The 
 bank has the right to apply the deposit to 
 payment of the depositor's matured indebted- 
 ness, but in California, if the note is secured 
 
 by a mortgage of real or personal property, 
 the bank cannot apply the deposit until the 
 security is exhausted. Vol. 6, p. 434, Dec, 
 1913. 
 
 1185, (N. C.) The rule is well settled 
 that a bank may look to deposits in its hands 
 for the repayment of any indebtedness to it 
 on the part of the depositor and may apply 
 his deposits on his debts to the bank as they 
 become due. A bank holding a matured note 
 of its depositor has the right to apply his de- 
 posit to payment of the note. In some juris- 
 dictions, to wit, California, Kentucky and 
 Massachusetts, it has been held that a bank 
 is not entitled to apply a deposit to a debt of 
 a depositor which is fully protected bv other 
 collateral. Vol. 10, p. 783, May, 1918. 
 
 Debt must be contracted in good faith 
 
 1186, (Pa.) A bank held a deposit to 
 the credit of A. One B, who ov.ned an un- 
 matured note executed by A, asked the bank 
 to discount the note on his personal guaran- 
 tee, and to use A's deposit as a set off at ma- 
 turity. Opinion: Ordinarily the bank would 
 have the right to set off A's note indorsed by 
 B against A's deposit, but there is a possibil- 
 ity that a court would deny the right of set off 
 on the ground that the note was acquired by 
 the bank to enable B to gain an unfair advan- 
 tage over A, and that the indebtedness of A 
 to the bank was not a bona fide debt subject 
 to set off. Vol. 5, p, 376, Dec, 191-?. 
 
 Set off against debt of presenting check- 
 holder 
 
 1187. (in.) The payee of a check who 
 presents it to a bank owes the bank on a past 
 due note, the amount being less than the 
 amount of the check. The bank in cashing 
 the check desires to deduct the amount of the 
 indebtedness and deliver him the balance. 
 Opinion: Drawee bank upon presentment of 
 a clieck by the payee indebted to it cannot de- 
 duct tlic amount of indebtedness from the 
 amount of the check, paying only the balance 
 to the liolder. In so doing it would lie violating 
 its contract with the drawer, namely, to pay 
 his checks according to his order and direc- 
 tion. Vol. 10, p. 310, Oct., 1917. 
 
 Set off of demand note 
 
 1188. (Iowa.) A bank held a demand 
 note of its depositor, who had on deposit a 
 balance smaller than the amount of the note. 
 Tlie bank applied the deposit in partial pay- 
 ment of tiie note, and two months later the 
 depositor was threatened with bankruptcy. 
 
 145
 
 1181) 
 
 DKiKST OF LECiAL UPiXlOXS 
 
 Opinion: Tlio application of the customer'a 
 (Icponit to Ilia (leiiiand note two niontlis before 
 it htTiune likely that the depositor would he 
 forced into bankruptcy was a valid set off. 
 The bank can retain such balance and prove 
 its claim for the amount remaininj;^ due 
 against the estate and recover its pro rata 
 share. Vol 5, p. 107, Aug., 1912. 
 
 1189. (Mich.) A ))ank has the right to 
 apply the funds to the general credit of a cus- 
 tomer toward payment of his demand note, 
 held by the bank, although no demand for 
 payment has been made. Where the demand 
 note is "secured by sundry notes deposited as 
 collateral'' the bank can set off the demand 
 note against the general deposit, and is not 
 compelled to first resort to such collateral. 
 Vol. 11, p. 39, July, 1918. 
 
 1190. (Ohio.) A had $2,000 on de- 
 posit with his bank, which owned his demand 
 note of $1,000. The bank applied the deposit 
 in payment of the note and two days after- 
 wards A failed. Opinion: The bank had the 
 right to apply the bankrupt's deposit upon his 
 demand note. Money deposited in a bank in 
 the due course of business by an insolvent 
 within four months of the time he is adjudged 
 a bankrupt, is not a transfer of property 
 amounting to a preference within the meaning 
 of the Bankruptcy Act of 1898. Vol. 3, p. 
 146, Sept., 1910. 
 
 Deposits impressed with trust character 
 
 1191. (111.) A note for $2,700 secured 
 by a chattel mortgage on cattle was given by 
 A to B, who sold it to Bank C. A Avrougfully 
 sold the mortgaged cattle and deposited the 
 proceeds with Bank D, part of which were 
 attached by one of A*s creditors and the bal- 
 ance was applied by the bank upon an in- 
 debtedness of A. B, knowing that the cattle 
 had been disposed of, re-purchased the note 
 and the mortgage from Bank C and brought 
 suit against Bank D to recover the proceeds 
 as a trust fund. Opinion: According to the 
 weight of authority (a few cases contra) Bank 
 D was entitled to apply the deposit upon the 
 indebtedness of A, and not obliged to account 
 for it as a trust fund if it had no knowledge 
 of its trust character. The bank, however, 
 has no such right of set off where it knows 
 that a general deposit is impressed with a 
 trust character. Vol. 8, p. 36, July, 1915. 
 
 Deposits made in view of insolvency 
 
 1192. (Mass.) The deposit balance of a 
 customer who has gone into bankruptcy may 
 
 be set off against his indebtedness to the bank 
 whether due or not, provided his deposits have 
 licen received in usual course subject to check 
 and not in view of his insolvency with an in- 
 tention to make a preferential a})propriation 
 in reduction of his indebtedness. Vol. 6, p. 
 575, Feb., 1914. 
 
 1193. (S. Dak.) A bank held certain 
 over-due iiotes of a lumber company. The 
 company made several deposits subject to 
 check which the bank applied to payment of 
 the notes. The company then became bank- 
 rupt. The bank had been employed by the 
 company as sales agent on salary. Opinion: 
 The deposits if made in the usual course, sub- 
 ject to check within four months of bank 
 ru])tcy, may be set off against the bankrupt's 
 notes, whether due or not, but it is otherwise 
 if the bank deposits were made by the com- 
 pany in view of insolvency with an intent to 
 give a preference. The Bankrupt Act pro- 
 vides that wages to salesmen are preferred 
 payments, but it is very doubtful that the act 
 would be construed to include the salary to 
 an incorporated state bank which acted as a 
 sales agent. Vol. 6, p. 683, April, 1914. 
 
 Deposit received after maturity of note 
 
 1194. (S. Dak.) A bank purchased 
 from the indorser a note which was not paid 
 at maturity by the maker, who claimed fail- 
 ure of consideration. After maturity the 
 bank received funds deposited to the general 
 account of the maker, against which funds it 
 set off the note. The bank had previously 
 started suit against the maker but discon- 
 tinued it after it had set off the note. Opin- 
 ion: The bank had a right to apply to the 
 payment of the note not only all the funds 
 deposited in the bank when the note matured, 
 but all funds afterwards received. Such 
 right is not affected by the fact that the bank 
 began and discontinued suit. Vol. 8, p. 142, 
 Aug., 1915. 
 
 Set off against city deposit 
 
 1195. (Ind.) A city in Indiana was in- 
 del)ted on an over-due note to a national bank 
 holding the city's funds, which were sufficient 
 to meet the note. The bank accordingly ap- 
 plied the deposit to payment of the note and 
 accrued interest. Opinion : In the absence of 
 a statute to the contrary (no apparent resttic- 
 tion in Indiana) the bank had the right to 
 apply such deposit to payment of the city's 
 indebtedness, the same as in case of an in- 
 dividual depositor. Vol. 7, p. 97, Aug., 1914. 
 
 146
 
 SET OFF 
 
 1204 
 
 Set off of claim for interest 
 
 1196. (Mo.) A bank, reeeiviiiir a note 
 for collection, collected from the maker and 
 after payment to the holder and surrender of 
 the note discovered that through error the 
 maker still owed $4.04 interest. The bank 
 paid this amount to the payee, the maker 
 acknowledging his indebtedness. Later the 
 maker of the note became a depositor for 
 $200 and against this account the bank 
 charged the $4.64 for which the depositor 
 brings suit. Opinion : In the discharge of 
 the liability for $4.64, the bank l)ecame sub- 
 rogated to the rights and remedies of the 
 holder of the note and there arose a legally 
 subsisting cause of action in its favor against 
 the maker of the note. The bank had the 
 right to set off his matured indebtedness 
 against the deposit. Vol. 9, p. 748, March, 
 1917. 
 
 Set off against indebtedness of decedent 
 
 1197. (Mo.) The administrator of an 
 estate draws a check against the account of 
 the deceased, which the bank refuses to pay, 
 claiming that it is entitled to set off against 
 the account a debt due at the time of deposi- 
 tor's death. Opinion: The bank has a right 
 to set off against the account of the depositor 
 a matured debt owing by him at the time of 
 his death, and to refuse to pay the check of 
 the administrator upon the deposit so set off. 
 Vol. 9, p. 909, May, 1917. 
 
 1198. (Mont.) A bank held two past 
 due unsecured notes of a customer who carried 
 a balance with the bank subject to check. The 
 customer died. Opinion: Upon the death of 
 the depositor, the bank had the right to set 
 off the past due notes against his account. 
 The decisions conflict as to the right of set oft' 
 where the notes have not matured. In IMon- 
 tana such right is denied. Vol. 6, p. 637, 
 March, 1914.' 
 
 1199. (N. C.) The maker of a note 
 died, leaving a balance to his cnecking ac- 
 count. The bank seeks to know whether it 
 has the right of set off before returning the 
 balance to the administrator. Opinion: A 
 bank owning the note of a customer who has 
 deceased has the right, if the note has ma- 
 tured, to apply the maker's deposit upon the 
 note and in North Carolina if the estate is 
 insolvent, may apply such deposit, even 
 though the note is not due. If tlie deposit is 
 not sufficient to meet the note the balance 
 would be a debt payal)le by the administrator. 
 The administrator in declaring a dividend 
 
 would only be required to base same upon 
 the balance due after the deposit was set off. 
 Vol. 11, p. 493, March, 1919. 
 
 1200. (Pa.) A bank loans $100 receiv- 
 ing therefor a judgment note for that amount. 
 The maker of the note subsequently deposits 
 $600 in a savings account and several days 
 later dies, the note having one month to run. 
 The bank seeks to set off the unmatured in- 
 debtedness against the account. Opinion: 
 Bank in Pennsylvania has the right to set off 
 unmatured note against savings account of 
 solvent decedent if note matures prior to com- 
 mencement of suit for deposit ; but set off 
 not allowed if estate of decedent insolvent. 
 Vol. 9, p. 747, March, 1917. 
 
 1201. (Pa.) A customer was indel)ted to 
 a bank on a note which became due several 
 days after he died. The bank held sufficient 
 funds of the decedent to apply on the note. 
 Opinion: In Pennsylvania, the bank may 
 charge the note to the account of the maker, 
 though the note does not become due for sev- 
 eral days after his decease, provided his estate 
 is solvent, i)ut such right of set off does not 
 exist if the estate is insolvent. Vol. 6, p. 
 508, Jan., 1914. 
 
 1202. (Wyo.) When a depositor dies, 
 indebted to the bank, the latter has the right 
 to apply the balance t-o his credit at the time 
 of his death upon a matured indebtedness of 
 the depositor, and is not accountable to the 
 administrator therefor, except for the excess 
 when the balance exceeds the indebtedness. 
 Vol. 5, p. 310, Nov., 1912. 
 
 Set off against indorser's account 
 See (iS4. 121-2 
 
 1203. (N. Y.) A bank discounted for 
 the indorser, who was its customer, a demand 
 note. Tlie indorser guaranteed the payment 
 thereof. The note was dishonored by tlie 
 maker. Opinion: The bank had tlie right to 
 charge up the note when dishonored against 
 the indorser's account, assuming his liability 
 as indorser has been dulv preserved. Vol. 5. 
 p. 667, April, 1913. " 
 
 1204. (S. C.) A depositor was indebted 
 to a bank in South Carolina as an indorser on 
 a note discounted for him. The bank set off 
 the note against the depositor's account. 
 Opinion : The bank had the right of set off, 
 but under the law of South Carolina must 
 give the depositor notice of application of the 
 deposit, and checks drawn before such notice 
 must be paid. Where the note is discounted 
 for tlie maker and the depositor is an accom- 
 
 147
 
 1205 
 
 DIGEST OP LEGAL OPINIONS 
 
 modation indorser, it is doubtful if the 
 lat tor's deposit can be set ofi". Vol. 8, p. 37, 
 July, 1915. 
 
 1205. (Tenn.) A bank cashed for its 
 depositor a cheek indorsed l)y him, payment 
 of which was refused l)y the drawee bank. 
 The depositor's liability as indorser was fixed 
 by due demand and notice of disnonor. The 
 bank wishes to set off his deposit against his 
 indebtedness as indorser. Opinion: There 
 existed a mutual debt between the bank and 
 its depositor, which would entitle the bank to 
 apply the indorser's deposit against his in- 
 debtedness as indorser. The bank would not 
 be compelled to first sue and obtain judgment 
 against the indorser who did not consent to 
 such application. Vol. 5, p. 309, Nov., 1912. 
 
 Depositor's right to set off against 
 
 insolvent bank 
 
 See 1214, 1215, 1216 
 
 1206. (Ark.) A depositor has (1) a 
 right to set off his deposit in an insolvent 
 national bank against his liability on a note 
 held by the bank, but (2) no right to set off 
 his deposit against his double liability as a 
 stockholder. Vol. 9, p. 241, Sept., 1916. 
 
 1207. (Ark.) Depositor in insolvent 
 bank has right to set off his deposit against 
 his indebtedness to the bank, whether due or 
 not. Vol. 6, p. 98, Aug., 1913. 
 
 1208. (Mass.) A bank held a note for 
 $5,000 of its depositor who had on deposit 
 $5,000. The bank failed before the note ma- 
 tured. Opinion: The depositor has the right 
 to set off the deposit standing to his credit 
 at time of insolvency against his liability on 
 the note. Vol. 5, p. 445, Jan., 1913. 
 
 1209. (Pa.) A is a depositor in a bank 
 which failed. A owed $500 on a note to the 
 bank and carried a balance of $500. B and 
 others are depositors but not indebted to the 
 bank. B asks if it is not discriminating 
 against him in favor of A to allow A to set 
 off his indebtedness. Opinion: A has a right 
 to set off his balance against his indebtedness 
 to the bank, whether due or not. The exer- 
 cise of such right is not discriminating 
 against B or the other depositors. Vol. 6, 
 p. 98, Aug., 1913. 
 
 Maker's account charged in interest of 
 indorsers 
 
 1210. (N. C.) "Where a bank owns an 
 indorsed note, and at maturity has sufficient 
 
 funds of the maker on deposit to pay it, the 
 decisions conflict as to wliether failure to 
 charge the note to the maker's account will 
 release the indorser. If, however, note by its 
 terms is payable at bank, under Negotiable 
 Instruments Law, being an order to the bank 
 to pay, indorser would be released by failure 
 to charge up. But bank is under no obliga- 
 tion, in interest of indorser, to apply maker's 
 deposit to note owned by it where funds 
 insufhcient at maturity, nor (according to 
 majority of courts, a few contra) to apply 
 sufficient subsequent deposits. Vol. 3, p. 5^3, 
 March, 1911. 
 
 1211. (Ohio.) At maturity of a note 
 made by a corporation and bearing several 
 indorsements, the maker had on deposit with 
 the bank o^vning the note a sum less than the 
 amount of the note. After maturity the cor- 
 poration drew out its balance and failed, leav- 
 ing the note unpaid. Opinion: A majority 
 of the courts hold that the bank is not obliged 
 to apply the maker's deposit towards a par- 
 tial satisfaction of the note in the interest of 
 the indorsers and sureties. The bank's omis- 
 sion to apply the partial deposit will not re- 
 lease the indorsers, although the maker sub- 
 sequently draws out the balance and then 
 fails. Vol. 6, p. 818, June, 1914. 
 
 1212. CPa.) A bank owned an over-due 
 note. The maker and indorser both carried 
 accounts with the bank. The maker's de- 
 posit was not sufficient to meet the note at 
 maturity. Opinion: The bank has a right 
 to set off against the indorser's account ; but 
 where the maker's account is sufficient at ma- 
 turity, the bank is bound to apply the maker's 
 deposit in relief of the indorser, and failure 
 so to do will discharge the indorser: if in- 
 sufficient at that time, subsequent deposits 
 will not raise that dutv. Vol. 8, p. 909. 
 April, 1916. 
 
 1213. (Pa.) A note of A was discounted 
 for B, the indorser, by a bank in which both 
 A and B were depositors. The note was not 
 paid at maturity and the bank charged the 
 note to A's account without first presenting 
 it at A's place of business, where it was 
 payable. Opinion: The bank probably had 
 the right of set off by charging the note to 
 A's account, without first presenting it to 
 him for pa^Tncnt at his place of business. 
 The same conclusion would apply where -the 
 note was discounted for A instead of for B. 
 In a case where such a note was presented 
 at A's place of business and protested, a 
 similar right of set off would exist against 
 A's account, but not against B's account, 
 
 14S
 
 SET OFF 
 
 1220 
 
 where A's account was sufiBeient. Yol. 4, p. 
 685, May, 1912. 
 
 Note set off against insolvent bank by 
 indorser 
 
 1214. (Ky.) A bank has a deposit of 
 $5,000 subject to check in B Bank, and 
 owes B Bank a note of $10,000. B Bank 
 fails. A Bank desires to pay B Bank $5,000 
 and set off the other $5,000. Opinion: It 
 is generally held by the courts that when a 
 bank becomes insolvent, and holds the note 
 of a depositor who is the maker, whether 
 due or not due, and also has a balance to 
 the credit of the depositor, the latter has 
 the right to set off the deposit against the 
 note. But where the depositor is indorser 
 on note of a solvent maker some cases hold 
 that the right of set off does not exist. Yol. 
 7, p. 494, Jan., 1915. 
 
 1215. (N. J.) A bank holds a matured 
 note of a depositor for an amount larger than 
 his account in said bank. The bank becomes 
 insolvent. Opinion: The depositor may 
 have his deposit set off against his note, 
 whether matiired or unmatured at the time 
 of the bank's insolvency, whether state or 
 national. This right of set off could be exer- 
 cised by the depositor tendering to the 
 receiver of the bank the difference between 
 the amount of his balance and the amount 
 due upon his note. But it is questionable 
 whether a depositor who has indorsed such 
 a note can have it set off against his deposit 
 in the insolvent bank unless the maker is 
 insolvent. Where, however, the depositor 
 discounted his wife's note Avith his indorse- 
 ment, and is the accommodated party and 
 the real debtor, he is entitled to a set off on 
 equitable ground. Yol. G, p. 508, Jan., 1914. 
 
 1216. (Wash.) A depositor in an in- 
 solvent bank, who is indebted to the bank as 
 maker upon a note, has a right to set off" his 
 deposit against such indebtedness, whether 
 the note is due or not yet matured. Where 
 the depositor is an indorser, some courts hold 
 the same right of set off exists, but others 
 that the indorser cannot set off his deposit 
 unless the maker is insolvent. Yol. 7, p. 
 387, Dec, 1914. 
 
 Partnership debt set off against individual 
 account 
 
 1217. (Cal.) A and B, co-partners, gave 
 to a bank their note of $300, due one day 
 after date, and later assigned their business 
 
 to C for the benefit of creditors. C ran the 
 business as assignee and kept his account with 
 tbe bank. The not€ not having been paid, 
 tiic Ijank wants to charge it to the assignee's 
 account. Opinion: The bank has the right 
 to set off the partnership note against the 
 deposit existing at the time of the assignment, 
 but cannot exercise such right against the 
 deposits of the assicmee. Yol. 9, p. 351, Oct., 
 191G. 
 
 1218. (N. C.) The firm of Doe and 
 Eoe owes a bank $165 upon its note. Doe 
 has sold out his interest to Smith, and has 
 deposited the purchase money in the bank to 
 his individual credit. Later, as a result of 
 a dispute, Doe agrees to refund part of the 
 purchase money to Smith, and has given 
 Smith an order on the bank for $1,000. The 
 bank has paid Smith all but $1G5 thereof, 
 claiming the right to set off the firm's note. 
 Opinion: Under the law of North Carolina 
 the bank cannot set off the firm's note against 
 the partner's individual account. But in an 
 action by Doe, the partner, or by Smith, the 
 assignee, for the deposit, the bank can plead 
 the firm's indebtedness by way of counter- 
 claim, or can recover the same in an inde- 
 pendent action against the partner. Vol. 6, 
 p. 97, Aug., 1913. 
 
 1219. (Tenn.) It is the general rule 
 that a bank has a right to set off a debt from 
 the depositor against his deposit, but the 
 mutual debts thus set off must be in the 
 same right; for example, it is generally held 
 that a bank cannot apply a deposit of an 
 individual to debt of a firm of which he is 
 a member, or cannot apply deposit of trustee 
 to debt of the trustee where his indebtedness 
 to the bank is personal. Yol. 5, p. 309, Nov., 
 1912. 
 
 Where depositor has two accounts 
 
 1220. (111.) A bank which carries both 
 a coinnieri'ial and a savings account sul)mits 
 for consideration four check forms as fol- 
 lows : Check A is an ordinary form of bank 
 check, but underneath the name of the bank 
 are the words "savings department," and the 
 check contains the not<ition "Book must 
 accompany this check, otherwise it will not 
 be honored, unless entry is made in book, or 
 book is left for entry of check when pre- 
 sented." Cheek B is the ordinary form of 
 bank check. Check C is the same form 
 with the words "Commercial Department" 
 under the name of the bank. Check D is 
 the same as C with the notation "This check 
 is to be paid from funds on deposit in com- 
 
 149
 
 1221 
 
 DICKST OF LKdAL OI'INIOXS 
 
 niorcial do|)artinent only." The bank uses 
 forms A and B, but suggests use of form C 
 to guard against customer who overdraws 
 his commercial account, and to avoid getting 
 the bank into tr()ul)le in declining payment 
 for insuflicient funds, even though the de- 
 positor has sudicient fuiuls in his savings 
 account. The bank asks desirability of using 
 forms C or D. Opinion: Where a bank 
 carries both a commercial and savings ac- 
 count and pays an overdraft on the commer- 
 cial account, it has the right to set off the 
 check against the customer's savings account, 
 but where funds in the savings account are 
 payable under special agreement, requiring 
 production of pass-book, bank is not obliged 
 to pay overdraft on commercial account and 
 charge same to sufficient funds in savings 
 account. The adoption of form C would 
 serve the useful purpose of training customer 
 that, in withdrawal of funds from either 
 commercial or savings account, a special form 
 is required. Form C is more desirable than 
 form D, for the reason that the notation 
 on the latter states a condition which may 
 affect its negotiability. Vol. 11, p. 169, 
 Sept., 1918. 
 
 1221. (N. J.) Where a depositor carries 
 both a commercial and savings account with 
 a bank and is indebted to the bank upon 
 matured notes, and the funds in the commer- 
 cial account are insufficient, a New York 
 court has held the bank has no right, with- 
 out the depositor's consent, to charge the 
 notes to the depositor's savings account. 
 The opinion in this case, however, is merely 
 obiter and would seem contrary to general 
 principles of set off. Vol. 11, p. 329, Dec, 
 1918. 
 
 1222. (N. Y.) A depositor besides his 
 ordinary account in a bank carried two other 
 accounts, one being marked "special" and 
 the other "agent." The bank did not know 
 whether the depositor owned the funds in 
 said two accounts or whether he held them in 
 a fiduciary capacity. The depositor became 
 indebted to the bank, created by an over- 
 draft on his personal account, and the bank 
 seeks to apply the balance in either of the 
 other accounts in settlement. Opinion: The 
 bank can set off the overdraft upon the ac- 
 counts styled "special" and "agent," pro- 
 vided such accounts are owned by the de- 
 positor in liis own right and are thus 
 designated merely for convenience. But, if 
 the accounts so marked are held as agent or 
 trustee for another, they cannot (according 
 to the weight of authority) be applied upon 
 
 the depositor's individual indebtedness, and 
 the bank is put upon inquiry by the form 
 of the account so styled. \'ol. 9, p. 577, 
 .Jan., iyi7. 
 
 1223. (S. C.) A depositor carries both 
 a cheeking and a savings account with a 
 bank and is indel)ted to the bank upon a 
 matured loan in excess of the checking but 
 witliin the savings account. Opinion: The 
 bank can charge the indebtedness to the sav- 
 ings account. Vol. 7, p. 384, Dec. 1914. 
 
 Unmatured debt set off against bankrupt 
 
 1224. (Ark.) A depositor owes his bank 
 $1,100 on a note not yet matured, and having 
 quarreled with the bank intends withdraw- 
 ing his account and doing business with 
 another bank. He refuses to allow the bank 
 to charge his account with the amount of 
 the note. Opinion: Unless the loan made 
 to the depositor upon his note was induced 
 by fraud upon his part or unless he is now 
 insolvent, the bank would have no right to 
 apply his deposit upon his unmatured note. 
 A bank has no right to apply a deposit to a 
 debt of the depositor until such debt matures, 
 unless (as held in some states, but denied in 
 others) the depositor becomes insolvent be- 
 fore maturity, or unless the debt has been 
 created by fraud, in which event the credit 
 given for the note can be rescinded. Vol. 11, 
 p. 169, Sept., 1918. 
 
 1225 (Mo.) A bank held two notes of 
 its depositor, one being a demand note for 
 $320, the other, pavable in six months, for 
 $1,000. The date of maturity of the latter 
 was extended three months by contract in- 
 dorsed on the note. Before the $1,000 note 
 matured, the depositor made a general assign- 
 ment to creditors. The bank, having on its 
 books $1,065 to the depositor's credit, debits 
 the amount of the demand note, and also 
 seeks to set off the unmatured note. Opin- 
 ion: In Missouri, bank holding unmatured 
 note of depositor cannot apply balance upon 
 note in event of depositor's insolvency. 
 Where maturity of note extended and depos- 
 itor becomes insolvent before end of period 
 of extension, note is unmatured paper and 
 cannot be set off unless contract of extension 
 can be rescinded, because of fraud or on other 
 equitable ground. Vol. 10, p. 120, Aug. 
 1917. 
 
 1226. (N. Y.) A depositor made a gen- 
 eral assignment. The bank held a note for 
 a larger amount than his balance, but not yet 
 due. The bank, claiming a set off. holds the 
 
 150
 
 STOPPIXG PAYMEXT 
 
 1232 
 
 money until maturity of the note. Opinion: 
 Under the law of Xew York the bank cannot 
 set off the deposit against the unmatured 
 note, but the rule in the federal courts and 
 under the Bankruptcy Act allows a set off. 
 Vol. 6, p. 818, June, 1914. 
 
 1227. (N. Y.) A bank made a loan to 
 its customer on his personal note, crediting 
 the customer with the money loaned. The 
 customer has drawn 75 per cent, of the money 
 by check and is about to go into bankruptcy. 
 The note is past due. The bank cannot 
 obtain a new note for the balance due, but 
 has a verbal understanding with the customer 
 that no more money Avill be drawn out. 
 Opinion: The bank can apply the deposit 
 against the customer's matured note, and in 
 case of his bankruptcy can prove its claim 
 against the estate for the balance. The cir- 
 cumstances of this case do not sliow tliat a 
 preferential transfer was made. A^ol. (>, ]>. 
 575. Feb., 1014. 
 
 1228. (Ohio.) The general rule is that a 
 bank has a right to apply a deposit to the 
 payment of any nuitnred debt due the bank 
 from the depositor. It has been held in Ohio 
 and other states (but the right is denied in 
 many states) that a bank may apply a deposit 
 to the payment of the depositor's indebted- 
 ness not yet matured, provided the depositor 
 is insolvent. Under the Xational Bankrupt 
 Act a bank may set off an unmatured note 
 against the deposit of the maker. Vol. 5, 
 p. 828, June, 1913. 
 
 1229. (Pa.) The rule that a bank has a 
 right to set off a deposit against its cus- 
 tomer's matured indebtedness applies equally 
 to his indebtedness upon paper discounted 
 
 for the customer and paper of the customer 
 purchased from a third person in the usual 
 course of business. The bank purchasing 
 from a third person would have the right to 
 apply the deposit of the maker of a note 
 equally as if it had been discounted for the 
 maker directly, subject, of course, to the 
 limitation that the paper was acquired in the 
 usual course of business and not purchased 
 for the e.xpress purpose of enabling the seller 
 to realize out of the funds of the maker 
 aj)proacliing insolvency. The riglit of set 
 off of unmatured paper upon the depositor's 
 insolvency is not recognized in Pennsylvania. 
 The rule is conflicting in other states but it 
 exists under tiie Xational Bankruj^t Act. 
 It would seem competent for a bank to make 
 an agreement with its customer giving the 
 former the right to such set off. Vol. 10. 
 p, 48, July, 1917. 
 
 1230. (S. Dak.) Where a borrower l)e- 
 comes bankrupt, the bank has the right, 
 under the provisions of the Xational Bank- 
 rupt Law, to apply his deposit upon his 
 notes, though unmatured. Aside from the 
 Bankrupt Act, the right of set off of an un- 
 matured note against the deposit upon the 
 insolvency of the maker is recognized in 
 some states and denied in others, but where 
 the right is given by contract it can be 
 enforced. The following form of contract, 
 if inserted in the borrower's note, would 
 protect the bank: "the bank at which this 
 note is payable is hereby authorized, in the 
 event of the maker's insolvency before matur- 
 ity hereof, to thereupon apply any balance 
 in said bank standing to tlie credit of the 
 maker in pavmcnt of this note.'' Vol. 7, p. 
 221, Oct., lit 14. 
 
 STOPPING PAYMENT 
 
 For Revocation of Check by Bankruptcy, 210, by Death. 452 et seq.; by Insanity or In- 
 competency, 84G et seq.; see also 275, 302 
 
 Accuracy of notice 
 
 1231. (Ala.) In A])ril a customer wish- 
 ing to stop payment on his clieck, notified 
 the bank and described the check as being 
 for $50, payable to John Doe and dated some 
 time in April, the exact date he did not know. 
 A check payable to John Doe for $50 and 
 dated July 2 was presented and paid by the 
 bank. The customer seeks to hold the bank 
 liable for violating his stop order. He claims 
 he omitted to date the check and the payee 
 supplied the date. Opinion: The bank is 
 not liable, as the check was not described 
 
 witli sufficient accuracy. When stopping pay- 
 ment he did not describe the check as dated, 
 l)ut stated it was dated in April. This mis- 
 description was material. Vol. 9, p. 349, 
 Oct., 191(5. 
 
 1232. (Cal.) .\ l)ank having before it 
 an order sto})i)ing payment of a post-dated 
 check, describing the check by name of the 
 drawer, number, date, amount and payee, 
 nevertheless paid the check when presented 
 on the day of its date because the number of 
 the check (12) was different from that (13) 
 given in the stop order. The bank endeav- 
 
 151
 
 1233 
 
 I)I(;est of legal opinions 
 
 ored in vain to rcacli the drawer before pay- 
 ment, but construed the order to refer to 
 another cheek. Opinion: Nolwithstandinf,' 
 a mistake in the number of the check, tlic 
 order was sunicient as an instruction to the 
 bank not to pay the presented ciieck. Vol. 
 8, p. 144, Aug., 1915. 
 
 Bank's liability for payment 
 
 1233. (N. J.) A depositor drew his 
 check and ten days later stopped payment. 
 Through an oversight the bank paid the 
 check. Opinion: The bank is liable to depos- 
 itor for any resultant damage; but if the 
 bank could prove payment had been made to 
 a holder who had enforceable rights against 
 the drawer, probably it would escape liabil- 
 ity. Vol. 5, p. 595, March, 1913. 
 
 1234. (Ohio.) A depositor, after his 
 check had been paid and returned to him as 
 a paid voucher, in ignorance thereof, issued 
 a duplicate check and notified the bank in 
 writing not to pay the original. Opinion: 
 The bank is not liable to the depositor because 
 the duplicate is paid. The bank is not 
 chargeable with knowdedge that the original 
 was paid and returned and that the stop 
 payment order was issued in error. Vol. 8, 
 p. 517, Dec, 1915. 
 
 1235. (Pa.) A gave B his check which 
 B lost, after he had indorsed it in blank. 
 A stopped payment, but the bank inadvert- 
 ently paid the check contrary to the stop 
 order. Opinion: If check paid to a holder 
 in due course, bank not liable for loss because 
 drawer not damaged, holder having right to 
 enforce payment from drawer and payee and 
 check operating as payment of drawer's debt 
 to payee ; but if check paid to finder or other 
 than holder in due course, drawer's debt to 
 payee would remain and bank would be liable 
 for loss. Vol. 10, p. 118, Aug. 1917. 
 
 Cashier's and certified checks 
 
 See 50, 54, 55 
 
 1236. (Mont.) A cashier's check upon 
 which there were three indorsements was piir- 
 chased by a bank and presented by it to the 
 drawee, where payment had been stopped be- 
 cause of fraud. Opinion: The purchasing 
 bank has recourse upon the drawer as well 
 as upon the indorsers, provided they have 
 been duly charged. Vol. 7, p. 898, May, 
 1915. 
 
 1237. (Ga.) A bank certified a check 
 for the drawer, who later requested the bank 
 
 to stop payment, as the agreement was not 
 fulfilled. Opinion: The drawer cannot stop 
 payment as a matter of right, but where the 
 drawer has been defrauded the bank may in 
 some cases comply with the drawer's request 
 and refuse payment upon receiving proper in- 
 demnity against ultimately being com])el!ed 
 to pay the holder. A^ol. 0, p. 750. May, 
 1914. 
 
 1238. (Mo.) The customer of a bank 
 })urchused its cashier's check of $600, pay- 
 able to his order. Afterwards without giving 
 any specific reason he wired the bank a re- 
 quest to stop payment and upon presentment 
 of the check payment was refused and the 
 item protested. Later the bank learned that 
 the customer had delivered the check in some 
 trade and becoming dissatisfied wired the 
 stop payment order. The bank is threatened 
 with a suit by the holder to enforce payment 
 of the check. Opinion: Certified and cash- 
 ier's checks, being used in place of money, the 
 courts refuse, as a general proposition, to per- 
 mit the issuing bank to refuse payment and 
 defend against the holder, even though he 
 has procured the check from the bank's cus- 
 tomer by fraud. In New Jersey, however, 
 it has been held — contrary to decisions else- 
 where — that where a check has been certified 
 for the drawer before delivery by him (as 
 distinguished from certification for the holder 
 after delivery by the drawer) the certifying 
 bank can plead fraud of the holder upon the 
 drawer in defense of pavment; In this case 
 the bank is the primary debtor upou the check 
 and is liable thereon to the holder who has 
 the legal title by indorsement. Vol. 11, p. 
 387, Jan., 1919. 
 
 1239. (N. J.) A contractor delivered 
 his certified check for $1,000 as liquidated 
 damages prior to entering upon a contract for 
 municipal improvements. The contract was 
 offered to him, but he refused to sign and do 
 the work. His certified check was deposited 
 and returned by the bank stamped "payment 
 stopped." The municipality seeks to recover 
 the amount. Opinion: Where check certified 
 for the drawer and payment is stopped by 
 the bank at the instance of the drawer, the 
 bank can defend against a fraudulent holder, 
 but where the certified check is delivered as 
 liquidated damages upon failure to perform a 
 contract according to bid, the certifying bank 
 and drawer are both liable thereon. Vol. 10, 
 p. 125, Aug., 1917. 
 
 1240. (N. Y.) A firm in New York re- 
 ceived a certified check on a New Jersey bank 
 in payment of merchandise. The check was 
 
 152
 
 STOPPING PAYMENT 
 
 1247 
 
 forwarded through a local bank, and when 
 presented payment had been stopped by the 
 maker. Opinion: The courts generally hold 
 that after a bank has certified a check, 
 whether for the drawer or the holder, it is 
 obligated thereon as for so much money, and 
 cannot interpose, in defense of payment, an 
 equity of the drawer against the payee or 
 holder. In New Jersey, however, where a 
 check is certified for a fraudulent payee, the 
 bank is liable to him and cannot plead fraud 
 upon the drawer in defense; but where the 
 check is certified for the drawer the bank 
 can refuse payment and plead fraud of the 
 payee in obtaining check from drawer in de- 
 fense of liability to payee. Vol. 11, p. 440, 
 Feb., 1919. 
 
 1241. (Pa.) A purchases goods from B 
 giving in payment his check and B procures 
 its certification. B fails to deliver the goods 
 and A requests bank to refuse payment. 
 Opinion: Where check has been certified for 
 payee and drawer afterwards reqiiests bank 
 to refuse payment, some cases hold (a) bank 
 liable on check even to fraudulent payee 
 while others hold (b) bank not liable to payee 
 who has received check through fraud or with- 
 out consideration or where drawer has set off 
 against payee. The point has not been de- 
 cided in Pennsylvania. Bank is liable on its 
 certified check in any event to an innocent 
 purchaser for value. Vol. 6, p. 680, April, 
 1914. 
 
 Disclaimer of liability for payment of 
 stopped checks 
 
 1242. (Ala.) In a form submitted for 
 protection of a bank in case of payment of a 
 stopped check, the bank acknowledges receipt 
 of the stop-payment order and states that "we 
 will make every effort to protect you, but will 
 not hold ourselves responsible in case of pay- 
 ment.'' Opinion: According to a decision in 
 New York the bank, notwithstanding such 
 form of notice or agreement, will not be re- 
 lieved from responsibility for payment of a 
 stopped check unless it has been free from 
 negligence in making payment. Vol. 5, p. 
 594. March, 19i;i. 
 
 1243. (N. Y.) A depositor agrees to 
 hold a bank harmless in the event the bank 
 inadvertently pays a check after a stop pay- 
 ment notice has been received. In this case, 
 the stop payment agreement is not merely a 
 statement in the pass-book, but is actually 
 signed by the depositor. Is the bank ab- 
 solved from liability? Opinion: The agree- 
 
 ment being virtually one exempting the bank 
 from liability for its own negligence will be 
 strictly construed. Such exemption contracts 
 are not favored by the courts and will, if pos- 
 sible, be construed in such a way as not to 
 relieve from negligence. How a specific con- 
 tract of this kind would be construed has not 
 been decided and cannot be foretold with cer- 
 tainty. Contracts for immunity from negli- 
 gence will be upheld in the State of New York 
 if expressed in unequivocal terms. Vol. 11, 
 p. 495 March, 1919. 
 
 1244. (N. Y.) A clause is inserted in a 
 stop payment order to a bank which reads as 
 follows: "Should you pay this check through 
 inadvertency or oversight, it is expressly un- 
 derstood that you will in no way be held re- 
 sponsible." Opinion: It is doubtful wheth- 
 er under this clause the courts will relieve 
 the bank in all cases of mistaken payments of 
 stopped checks, irrespective of whether or not 
 the bank has used reasonable care. The ten- 
 dency of the courts to to attach to all agree- 
 ment relieving the bank from liability an 
 implied condition that the bank on its part 
 must exercise reasonable care. Vol. 9, p. 
 318, Oct., 1916. 
 
 Duty to obey instructions 
 See 850, 1159 
 
 1245. (Kan.) A gives his check in pay- 
 ment of a horse, and later, finding the horse 
 not as represented, stops payment on the 
 check, which had been indorsed to a holder 
 in due course. The bank refuses to pay. 
 Opinion: Such holder has no remedy against 
 the drawee bank, but must look to the drawer 
 and any prior indorsers. It is not for the 
 bank to go into the equities of the case be- 
 tween holder and drawer, as its duty is solely 
 to its customer. The rule is otherwise in a 
 few states where a check is regarded as an 
 assignment of funds. Vol. 2, p. 335, Feb., 
 1910. 
 
 XoTK: The oiiactniont of the Negotiable Instru- 
 ments Law in all states except Georgia lias abol- 
 ished tins last stated rule. 
 
 1246. (Minn.) A depositor purchased 
 goods, giving his check in pa^Tiient. Upon 
 discovering an error he stopped payment. 
 Tiie holder presented the check at the drawee 
 hank and demanded payment. Opinion: The 
 l)ank was in duty bound to obey the instruc- 
 tion and refuse payment, and it incurred no 
 liabilitv to the holder for such refusal. Vol. 
 r, p. 897, :Nray, 1915. 
 
 1247. (Pa.) A depositor purchases 
 goods of a wholesaler giving his check in 
 
 153
 
 1248 
 
 DIGEST OF LEGAL OriNIOXS 
 
 payinciit. Aflor rccoiviiifj the ^oods the de- 
 positor stops payment. Opinion: The draw- 
 er's liahility to punishment for obtaininj^ 
 ^^oods under false pretenses depends upon 
 proof of intent to stop payment at the time 
 of giving the check. A liank is not liable to 
 the holder for obeying tlic stop payment order 
 of its depositor, but where the drawer con- 
 tinually practices such fraud, the best course 
 for tlie hank is to close his account. Vol. 7, 
 p. 778, April, IDLl 
 
 1248. (S, C.) A customer issues his 
 clieek in payment of an automobile. Find- 
 ing the machine unsatisfactory, he instructs 
 his bank not to honor the check. A third 
 party, the collecting bank, presents the item 
 and payment is refused. Both the hank and 
 the customer are sued for non-payment. 
 Opinion: Drawee bank must obey customer's 
 instruction not to pay check where given be- 
 fore acceptance or payment and is not liable 
 to holder for refusing payment. Vol. 11, p. 
 40, July, 1918. 
 
 Notes payable at bank 
 
 1249. (Ala.) In the event the maker of 
 a note payable at a bank does not desire bank 
 to pay at maturity, it is necessary for him to 
 stop payment; where the bank wrongfully re- 
 fuses to pay a check when in funds, the courts 
 have in many cases awarded the depositor 
 damages for injury to his credit, and it would 
 seem, the same principle would apply to notes 
 payable at bank. Vol. 4, p. 304, Nov., 1911. 
 
 1250. (N. Y.) Note payable at bank is 
 equivalent to order to bank to pay same for 
 account of maker and latter has right to stop 
 payment. Vol. 7, p. 39, July, 1914. 
 
 1251. (Pa.) A gave his promissory note 
 to B, payable at A's bank. B negotiated the 
 note in his own bank and at maturity pay- 
 ment was stopped, although there were suffi- 
 cient funds to cover the note. Opinion: A 
 note payable at a bank constitutes an order 
 to the bank to pay the same for the account 
 of the maker, but payment should be refused 
 where the maker instructs the bank not to 
 pay. Vol. 6, p. 628, March, 1914. 
 
 1252. (Wash.) B purchased goods of 
 A, giving him in payment an acceptance 
 covering the invoice, payable at a bank at a 
 future date. Before maturity B stopped 
 pajnnent, although B had on deposit in the 
 bank sufficient funds. Opinion: An accep- 
 tance or note payable by the acceptor or maker 
 at a bank is not an assignment of the deposit 
 
 to the holder and is subject to countermand 
 by the maker before the bank has paid the 
 acc('[)tance or accepted or paid the note. Vol. 
 9, p. GGl, Feb., 1917. 
 
 Notice holds good indefinitely 
 
 1253. (N. J.) An order to stop payment 
 can be made by a customer to his bank before 
 the check has been paid or accepted and such 
 order does not expire after a certain time 
 limit, but holds good indefinitelv. Vol. 9, p. 
 582, Jan., 1917. 
 
 1254. (Va.) A hank which pays a check 
 after receiving a stop-order from its depos- 
 itor does so at its peril. The usual custom of 
 banks in Xew York City with respect to ac- 
 cepting notices of stop-payment is to keep 
 the orders on file indefinitely; if a check is 
 three or four years old, the banks inquire of 
 the drawer whether or not there was a stop- 
 payment order. Vol. 1, p. 296, Feb., 1909. 
 
 Oral notice 
 
 1255. (Ala.) Under the Negotiable In- 
 struments Law a drawee bank is not liable to 
 the holder of a check, unless it accepts or 
 certifies the check, and the maker has the 
 right to stop payment. An oral notice to stop 
 payment is probably sufficient and a written 
 order is not necessary, although the point has 
 not yet been judiciallv passed upon. Vol. 
 4, p. 376, Dec, 1911. 
 
 Note: In Peoples Sav. Bank it Tru«t Co. v. 
 Lacey, 40 So. (Ala.) 346 it was held that a de- 
 positor may prove a verbal notice given hy him 
 l)efore payment to the bank's receiving teller not 
 to pay a check, though afterwards at request of 
 the teller he reduced the notice to \vriting. 
 
 1256. (Del.) The customer of a bank 
 met its cashier at a social function and 
 verbally notified him to stop payment on a 
 certain check. The next day the cashier 
 made a written memorandum of the order. 
 About a month later the check was paid. 
 Opinion: The notice was valid and binding 
 on the bank. The law does not require that 
 the notice be in writing, and although an 
 oral notice might not be valid when given 
 outside of the bank, the fact that a written 
 memorandum of the notice was made by the 
 cashier at the hank would validate it. Vol. 
 1, p. 299, Feb., 1909. 
 
 1257. (N. Dak.) A made his check to 
 B in payment of a debt but later verbally 
 stopped payment because he had settled the 
 debt by giving B a note. Two years later, 
 after the debt was paid, B deposited the check 
 for collection and the same was paid. Opin- 
 
 154
 
 STOPPIXG PAYMENT 
 
 1265 
 
 ion : The drawee cannot charge the amount to 
 A's account, because it has violated the stop 
 order and has paid a stale check. The 
 drawee, however, can recover from the payee 
 under the rule that money obtained by deceit 
 and in bad faith is recoverable. Vol. 9, p. 
 51, July, 1916. 
 
 1258. (Okla.) John Jones issued a 
 check, wliieh was presented and paid about 
 one year later. The depositor claimed that 
 he stopped payment a few days after the issue, 
 but the bank had no record of the stop order. 
 Opinion : If the depositor can prove an oral 
 instruction not to pay, he can recover, unless 
 the bank can prove that the check when paid 
 was in the hands of a holder in due course 
 •who could enforce the check against the 
 drawer. If a check is stale it places the bank 
 on inquiry before payment, but whether a 
 check one year old can be called stale is an 
 unsettled question. Vol. 5, p. 658, April, 
 1913. 
 
 Practice of stamping "payment stopped" 
 
 1259. (N. Y.) Following its usual cus- 
 tom, a bank to whom a check was presented 
 stamped across the face "payment stopped" 
 and returned the same to the payee. The 
 maker of the check had previously counter- 
 manded payment. The payee claimed that 
 as the check was his property, the bank had 
 no right to deface it by such stamp. Opin- 
 ion: Custom of bank to stamp a counter- 
 manded check "Payment stopped*' before re- 
 turning to the holder serves a beneficial pur- 
 pose without injury to a bona fide holder and 
 will doubtless be sustained by the courts. Vol. 
 10, p. 205, Sept., 1917. 
 
 1260. (N. Y.) There is no law express- 
 ly forbidding a drawee bank from stamping 
 "payment stopped" upon a check, which has 
 been refused for that reason. Such a prac- 
 tice has the beneficial result of warning sub- 
 sequent holders that payment has been stop- 
 ped, thereby preventing further negotiation. 
 A"ol. 4, p. 92, Aug., 1911. 
 
 1261. (Pa.) A bank refused payment of 
 a check in pursuance of instruction from the 
 drawer not to pay, and stamped "payment 
 stopped" upon the instrument, before return- 
 ing the same to the holder. The presenting 
 bank objected to this action, taking the posi- 
 tion that the drawee had no right to so mark 
 the check, which was not its property. Opin- 
 ion: The act of stamping "payment stopped" 
 upon the check was proper in view of the 
 custom so to do, the beneficial purpose there- 
 
 by served, and the fact that no substantial 
 right of the holder is violated. Vol. 4, p. 
 681, May, 1912. 
 
 NoTK: It has been held that no action for 
 dama<,'e will lie against a bank for defacing a 
 note, as by writing on the face there<if the words 
 "payment stopped." McKinlev r. American Ex- 
 change Bank, 7 Rob. (X. Y.) "603. 
 
 Recovery by drawee 
 See 580 
 
 1262. (Miss.) A bank was notified by 
 its customer not to pay his check and there- 
 after, in violation of the stop order, makes 
 payment to an innocent holder under a forged 
 indorsement. The bank contends that tiie 
 holder is liable upon the forged indorsement. 
 The holder claims that, payment having been 
 stopped, it should have been notified immed- 
 iately on payment, as it might have had op- 
 portiinity to protect itself. Opinion: It has 
 been held that the case does not fall within 
 the general rule allowing the drawee to re- 
 cover money paid upon a forged indorsement 
 but that the bank, making payment in face 
 of the stop order, is precluded from setting 
 up the forgery of the indorsement and can- 
 not recover the money paid from an innocent 
 holder who has received pavment. Vol. 11, 
 p. 93, Aug., 1918. 
 
 1263. (Mont.) Bank which pays stop- 
 ped check to a bona fide holder cannot after- 
 wards recover back tlie money, but payment 
 to fraudulent holder is probably recoverable. 
 Where, however, holder has taken check as 
 gift and receives payment in good faith with- 
 out notice of countermand by drawer it would 
 seem that payment is irrevocable. Vol. 9, p. 
 49. July, 1916. 
 
 1264. (N. Y.) The drawer of a check 
 stopped payment. The drawee attached a 
 slip to the item, indicating that payment was 
 stopped and returned it to the collecting 
 bank. Later, through the fraud of the payee, 
 tlie check was presented a second time and 
 paid by the drawee bank'. Opinion: The 
 drawee cannot charge the amount to the draw- 
 er's account, but wliere payee induced pay- 
 ment throiigh fraud, the general rule that 
 payment to a bona fide holder is a finality 
 does not apply, and the bank has the right of 
 recovery from the pavee. Vol. 7, p. 777. 
 April, 1915. 
 
 1265. (Pa.) A customer requested his 
 bank to sto]> payment on his check of $200. 
 The stop order was unfortunately overlooked 
 and the check was paid. The bank had evi- 
 dence from the holder that the maker re- 
 
 155
 
 12GC:i 
 
 DIGEST OF LEGAL OPINIONS 
 
 ceivcd value for the check, and the hohler re- 
 fuses to refund the amount. In tlie event the 
 maker recovers the amount from the bank, it 
 believes he will be receiving double value. 
 Opinion: Where a bank pays a stopj)0(l check 
 it docs so at its peril, hut where i)ayment is 
 made to a liolder in due course or where the 
 drawer has received full value for the check, 
 there is ground for maintaining the conten- 
 tion that the bank can set oiT the amount 
 against the drawer's account as equitable 
 purchaser of the check. Where a stopped 
 check is an enforceable obligation against the 
 drawer in the hands of a holder in due course, 
 the former is not damaefcd because of its pay- 
 ment by the bank, for, if refused payment, 
 the drawer would be answerable to such 
 holder. Vol. 10, p. 463, Dec, 1917. 
 
 Rights of holder in due course 
 
 See 506 ct scq., 646 et seq., 1265 
 
 1266. (Ariz.) A bank purchased a New 
 York draft of $50 from A, who received the 
 instrument in payment for goods delivered to 
 B. The draft was presented and the payment 
 was stopped by the bank issuing the draft at 
 the request of B, the payee, who discovered 
 that the goods had been mortgaged. Opinion: 
 The purchasing bank, as a holder in due 
 course, can recover payment from the issuing 
 bank and from the prior indorsers and its 
 rights cannot be defeated by stopping pay- 
 ment. The drawee bank, however, is in duty 
 bound to obey the stop payment order. Vol. 
 9, p. 585, Jan., 1917. 
 
 1267. (Cal.) John Doe purchased from 
 a stranger an automobile appliance, giving 
 his check of $50 in payment. Having be- 
 come dissatisfied with the article, he stopped 
 pa}Tiient. In the meantime, a bank in good 
 faith cashed the check from the stranger, and 
 John Doe refuses to pay the amount. Opin- 
 ion: A bank which in good faith purchases a 
 check from the payee without notice of any 
 defense thereto is a holder in due course and 
 can hold the drawer liable for the full amount 
 thereof, free from his defense against the 
 payee. Vol. 11, p. 389, Jan., 1919. 
 
 1268. (Colo.) A client purchased from 
 a bank a draft drawn by it on its Chicago cor- 
 respondent for $2,500. Two days after said 
 issue, upon the payee's request given at the 
 time, the bank stopped payment on its draft, 
 which had come into the hands of an innocent 
 purchaser for value. The holder now seeks 
 to recover damages from the drawer of the 
 check, besides the amount of the draft. 
 Opinion: The drawer of a check who stops 
 
 its payment at the request of the payee is 
 liable thereon io a holder in due course for 
 its face amount with interest and protest fees, 
 together with court costs in case of suit; but 
 there is no additional liability to such holder 
 for damages because of such stoppage of ))ay- 
 ment. The rule is that where a bank wrong- 
 fully refuses payment of its customer's check, 
 the latter has a right of action for damages 
 in addition to the amount of the check, be- 
 cause of injury to his credit, but the reason 
 for allowing damages in such a case does not 
 apply to an indorser as in this case. The 
 holder does not receive injury to his credit 
 by non-payment of the check, because it is not 
 his check which has been dishonored, but the 
 check of someone else. Vol. 11, p. 275, Nov. 
 1918. 
 
 1269. (Colo.) A gave his check in pay- 
 ment for beaver hides. The check was pur- 
 chased from the payee by a bank. Later A 
 was arrested for having the hides in his pos- 
 session during the closed season, being 
 contrary to law, and accordingly stopped 
 payment of the check. Opinion: The bank 
 purchasing the check from the payee may 
 enforce payment from the drawer, if it ac- 
 quired the check without knowledge of the 
 illegal consideration. Vol. 6, p. 34, July, 
 1913. 
 
 1270. (Colo.) A bank in Colorado sold 
 its draft on a New York bank to A, who gave 
 it to B to close up a deal. B cashed the 
 draft with C. Payment was stopped by A 
 because of fraud. Opinion: C as bona fide 
 purchaser for value of the stopped draft which 
 has been duly protested has recourse upon the 
 drawer and prior indorsers. Vol. 5, p. 373, 
 Dec, 1912. 
 
 1271. (111.) A issued his check to B for 
 $650. Before negotiation A notified B that 
 he had stopped payment because of fraud. 
 Disregarding the notice, B negotiated the 
 check to C, who had no notice of the stop 
 payment and who gave part cash and the 
 balance for a bill owed by B to C. Opinion: 
 C may recover from A, as he was an innocent 
 purchaser for valuable consideration. Vol. 8, 
 p. 611, Jan., 1916. 
 
 1272. (Kan.) A check was issued in 
 pa3inent for certain goods. Shortly there- 
 after the drawer discovered he had been de- 
 frauded and stopped payment of the check. 
 In the meantime a bank cashed the check. 
 Opinion: The bank which cashed the check 
 for the payee was a holder in due course and 
 can enforce payment from the drawer. Vol. 
 8, p. 913, April, 1916. 
 
 156
 
 STOPPIXG PAYMENT 
 
 1284 
 
 1273. (La.) A live stock dealer pur- 
 chased five head of cows, giving his check for 
 $95 in payment. He drove the cattle to an- 
 other state and then stopped payment of the 
 check, which, in the meantime, had been 
 purchased by a bona fide holder. Opinion: 
 The holder can enforce payment from the 
 drawer and prior indorser, assuming the 
 latter's liability has been preserved by due 
 notice of dishonor. As to criminal liability, 
 the drawer could be convicted of obtaining 
 goods upon false pretenses, provided a jury 
 could be convinced that he gave the check 
 and received the cattle with the fraudulent 
 intent to stop payment of the check. Vol. 7, 
 p. 777, April, 1915. 
 
 1274. (Neb.) A gave B his check, 
 which was indorsed by B to C. For some 
 reason of his own, B stopped payment of the 
 check. Opinion: B had no right to stop pay- 
 ment, but where the drawer stops payment 
 at the payee's request, a holder in due course 
 may hold both drawer and pavee liable. Vol. 
 7, p. 307, Nov., 1914. 
 
 1275. (Neb.) A gave B his check, which 
 was cashed by C. C was later notified not 
 to cash the check, because A had stopped 
 payment. Opinion: C having cashed the 
 check for B in good faith can recover from 
 the drawer. Vol. 5, p. 245, Oct., 1912. 
 
 1276. (Okla.) F. Brothers issued their 
 check to A. S. Brown, who used it in payment 
 of a bill which he owed to A. F. Brothers, 
 discovering that they had been defrauded by 
 Brown, stopped payment of the check. 
 Opinion: A, the innocent purchaser for value 
 of the check, can recover from F. Brothers. 
 Vol. 8, p. 33, July, 1915. 
 
 1277. (Okla.) The drawer of a check 
 who purchased several bales of cotton from 
 A, discovered that the cotton was mortgaged 
 and immediately stopped payment of the 
 check. In the meantime A had received the 
 money from a bona fide purchaser of the 
 check. Opinion: The drawer had the right 
 to stop payment of the check, l)ut he would 
 still be liable to the purchasing bank which 
 cashed the check in good faith. A^'ol. 4, p. 
 431, Jan., 1912. 
 
 1278. (Pa.) A gave his check to B, who 
 cashed it with C, and later payment was 
 stopped by A. Opinion: C, who purchased 
 from B without notice, was a holder in due 
 course and can enforce pavment from A. 
 Vol. 8, p. 1103, June, 1916.' 
 
 1279. (Pa.) A purchaser gave his check 
 in payment for some goods which were not 
 
 as represented. The drawer stopped pay- 
 ment, but in the meantime the payee of the 
 check cashed it at a national bank. The 
 payee was irresponsible. Ojnnion: The na- 
 tional bank, which purchased the check in the 
 regular course of business, is a holder in due 
 course and can recover the amount and pro- 
 test fees from the drawer. Vol. 6, p. 438, 
 Dec, 1913. 
 
 1280. (Tenn.) A customer issued his 
 check of $22 to a negro in payment for a cow, 
 and later stopped payment thereon when he 
 learned that the cow had been stolen. In 
 the meantime the negro had cashed the check 
 at a bank. Opinion: The liank was an inno- 
 cent purchaser for value and as such can en- 
 force pavment from the drawer. Vol. 8, p. 
 33, July; 1915. 
 
 1281. (Tex.) A gave B his check for 
 $100. B indorsed to C, who cashed it with 
 Jones, an innocent party. B on discovering 
 that C had defrauded him, requested the 
 drawee not to pay, which request was com- 
 plied with. Opinion: Jones can enforce pay- 
 ment from the drawer and prior parties, free 
 from the defense of fraud, l)ut cannot com- 
 pel the bank to pay. Vol. 7, p. 165, Sept., 
 1914. 
 
 1282. (Wash.) A bank cashed a check 
 indorsed by the payee and another. Payment 
 of the check was stopped because the maker 
 received no consideration from the j>ayee. 
 Opinion: The bank which ])urchased the 
 check in good faith can enforce payment from 
 the drawer, free from the latter's defense 
 against the payee. Vol. 7, p. 776, April, 
 1915. 
 
 Where instrument is an assignment 
 
 1283. (111.) A draft on a Minnesota 
 bank, payable to Henry Brown, was indorsed 
 by Brown to an Illinois bank, a holder in due 
 course. Before the check was presented, pay- 
 ment was stopped. Opinion: In Minnesota, 
 where a check is an assignment, the drawer 
 cannot countermand payment when in the 
 hands of a bona fide holder and the latter has 
 a right of action against tlie drawee bank 
 which refuses payment, when in funds, be- 
 cause of stop order. Vol. 5, p. 372, Dec, 
 1912. 
 
 NoTK: The Xpj;otial)le In^trunionts Act passed 
 ill Miniiosota in .April. l!»l.{. iias chnnpod this 
 riilo liy providing; tliat tin* jjivinp of a clipck doos 
 not opprate as an assijjnnuMit of funds. This in 
 effect ijivcs the drawer the riglit of stop payment. 
 
 1284. (S. C.) Under the law of South 
 Carolina. (dilTering from the large majority 
 
 157
 
 128^ 
 
 Dir;T':sT of lec.al optxioxs 
 
 of states), the drawer of a clieek li.is no riglit 
 to stop payment of his check, unless perhaps 
 it was obtained from him by fraud and is 
 still in the hands of the payee, but if the 
 c-lieck has Iteen neij;otiated to a bona fide 
 liolder, tlic rigiit to countermand would be 
 lost. Vol. 2, p. 415, April, ]J)10. 
 
 NoTK: Tlu> Nof^'otialilo Tiistninitnts Act iia-^Hcd 
 in Soutli Carolina in iMaroli, 1914, lias clianpcd 
 this rule liy proviilinji that the givinir of a check 
 does not o|)erate as an assij^ninent of funds. This 
 in etrect {^ives the drawer tlie ri<i;ht of stop pay- 
 ment. 
 
 1285. (S. Dak.) In South Dakota, con- 
 trary to the rule in most of the states, a check 
 is an assignment to the payee which binds the 
 bank as soon as presented and, as a conse- 
 quence, the drawer cannot countermand pay- 
 ment, though he may withdraw his balance 
 before presentment of the check. Vol. 3, p. 
 336, Dec, 1910. 
 
 Note: The Negotiable Instruments Act passed 
 in South Dakota in February, 1913, has changed 
 this rule by providing that the giving of a 
 check dcK's not operate as an assignment of funds. 
 This in effect gives the drawer the right of stop 
 payment. 
 
 Where instrument is not an assignment 
 
 1286. (111.) A drew his check for $100, 
 payable to B, who indorsed for value to C, 
 an innocent holder. Before C presented the 
 check A ordered the bank not to pay. Opin- 
 ion: In Illinois where a check is not an as- 
 signment, the drawer may countermand 
 payment of a check and the holder has no 
 right of action against the bank thereon, but 
 his recourse is limited to the drawer and 
 prior parties. Vol. 5, p. 372, Dec, 1912. 
 
 1287. (111.) The former law in Illinois 
 has been changed by the Negotiable Instru- 
 ments Law, providing that the giving of a 
 check does not operate to assign the deposit. 
 The drawer now has the right to stop pay- 
 ment, and the bank is under no liability to 
 the holder for refusing payment, f)ursuant 
 to the stop order. Vol. 2, pj 481, May, 1910. 
 
 1288. (Mass.) .\ l)earer check not being 
 an as.signmoiit, but merely an order and au- 
 thority to tlie bank to pay, the drawer has 
 riglit lo stop piiyment e(jually as in case of a 
 check parable to order. Vol. 7, p. 106, Aug., 
 1914. 
 
 1289. (Tex.) A check hears the follow- 
 ing notation, "given as earnest money on land 
 trade." The bank questions its right to pay 
 the instrument without first inquiring as to 
 the status of the land trade, also the right 
 of the drawer to stop payment. Opinion: 
 The check would be construed as an uncon- 
 ditional order to pay, the notation being a 
 mere statement of the consideration for which 
 the check was given. If the check operated 
 to assign the fund in the bank, as soon as 
 delivered, the drawer would have no right of 
 countermand, but if it was a mere order on 
 an authority to the bank to pay and did 
 not have the legal effect of assignment, the 
 drawer would have the right to stop payment. 
 According to the weight of authority in 
 Texas, a check does not operate as an assign- 
 ment. Vol. 9, p. 496, Dec, 1916. 
 
 Note: The Negotiable Instruments Law pro- 
 viding that a clieck does not operate as an as- 
 signment was parsed in Texas in March, 1919. 
 
 TAXATION 
 
 Canadian bank notes and currency 
 
 1290. (Idaho.) Bank which pays out in 
 the United States Canadian bank notes which 
 have been received by it, must pay tax of ten 
 per cent, on all notes so paid out. Vol. 3, p. 
 402, Jan., 1911. 
 
 1291. (N. Dak.) A bank in the United 
 States which pays out over its counter Can- 
 adian bank notes which it has received on de- 
 posit is subject to the Federal tax of 10 per 
 cent, on all notes so paid out, but a bank in 
 the United States may receive Canadian bank 
 notes on deposit and send them to Canada 
 for redemption without being required to pay 
 tax thereon. Vol. 3, p. 145,' Sept., 1910. 
 
 1292. (Wash.) A national or state bank 
 which receives on deposit and pays out Can- 
 
 adian currency is liable to the 10 per cent, 
 tax thereon under U. S. Eev. Stat., Sec. 3412, 
 but a bank may receive on deposit and send 
 such currency to Canada for redemption 
 without being required to pay tax thereon. 
 Vol. 11, p. 167; Sept., 1918. 
 
 Corporation tax law 
 
 1293. (Kan.) The Corporation Tax 
 Law passed by Congress on August 5, 1909, 
 providing for a tax on incomes for the year 
 1909, is enforceable and does not come within 
 the definition of ex post facto laws. Vol. 2, 
 p. 335, Feb., 1910. 
 
 1294. (Ohio.) A bank in making its 
 corporation tax return under the Federal Ex- 
 cise Tax Law of August 5, 1909, deducted 
 from its gross income the amount paid by it 
 
 I5S
 
 TAXATION 
 
 1302 
 
 for the state, county and municipal taxes as- 
 sessed against its sliareholders. The Commis- 
 sioner of Internal Kevenue contended that 
 such taxes paid by tlie bank on its own stock 
 were chargeable to the individual stockhokler 
 and are not proper deductions from gross in- 
 come authorized by the law. Opinion: The 
 deduction was not authorized where the tax 
 sought to be deducted is levied against the 
 shareholder and the bank pays the tax for the 
 shareholder. Vol. 3, p. 519, March, 1911. 
 
 1295. (Pa.) It is very questionable 
 under the Corporation Tax Law whether a na- 
 tional bank can deduct from gross income the 
 depreciation in premium on United States 
 bonds when the depreciation is not evidenced 
 by the books, the premium being still carried 
 as an asset. Vol. 2, p. 335, Feb., 1910. 
 
 Deduction of government bonds 
 Soe 132.3 
 
 1296. (Ky.) Government bonds owned 
 by a national bank, whether held for circula- 
 tion or for investment, cannot be deducted 
 from the taxable value of the sTiares, A de- 
 cision in Kentucky holds tliat the Kentucky 
 tax law of 1906 imposes a tax upon national 
 bank shares which is payable by the bank and 
 collectible from the shareholders and not upon 
 the capital of the bank, and that the value 
 of United States bonds owned by the bank 
 cannot be deducted from the assessment. 
 The court makes no distinction between bonds 
 used as a basis for circulation and bonds held 
 as a pure investment. Vol. 1, p. 62, Aug., 
 1908. 
 
 Deduction of real estate 
 
 1297. (Mass.) In ]\Iassachusetts the law 
 provides that bank shares shall be assessed to 
 the owner in the city or town in which the 
 bank is located and not elsewhere, in the as- 
 sessment of state, county and town taxes, 
 whether such owner is a resident of such city 
 or town or not. They shall be assessed at 
 their fair cash value on the first day of May, 
 first deducting therefrom the ])roportionate 
 part of the value of the real estate belonging 
 to the bank, at the same rate as other moneyed 
 capital in the hands of individuals is by law 
 assessed. The banks pay the tax and have a 
 lien on the shares for reimbursement. A"ol. 
 l,p. 170, Nov., 1908. 
 
 1298. (Mont.) A bank does not hold 
 title to real estate, but holds title to one-half 
 the sliares of a corporation which owns the 
 building in which the bank is located. The 
 
 Montana statute on taxation of banks pro- 
 vides that the value of the real estate to which 
 the bank holds title shall be deducted from 
 the total value of the bank shares and the real 
 estate assessed to the bank. Opinion: The 
 statute does not authorize deduction of the 
 value of the bank's holding of stock of the 
 company which owns the bank building. Vol. 
 8, p. 251, Sept., 1915. 
 
 1299. (N. Y.) Banks in New York 
 must pay tax, assessed against the share- 
 holders, at the rate of 1 per cent, of the tax- 
 able value of the shares and in arriving at 
 such taxable value the value of real estate 
 owned by the bank cannot be deducted, nor 
 can the bank deduct the value of real estate 
 mortgages owned by it upon which mortgage 
 tax has been paid nor the value of govern- 
 ment, state or village bonds owned by the 
 bank. Vol. 11, p. 214, Oct., 1918. 
 
 1300. (N. Y.) A bank pays a state tax 
 
 of 1 per cent, on its capital stock, surplus and 
 undivided profits. It is also assessed for 
 local and state taxes on its building which is 
 part of its capital and surplus. The bank 
 objects to the assessment on the ground of 
 double taxation of its real estate. Opinion: 
 The bank must pay taxes on its real estate, 
 notwithstanding such real estate is included 
 in the value of its shares upon which 1 per 
 cent, tax is levied. Vol. 7, p. 220, Oct:, 1914. 
 
 Deduction of taxes 
 
 1301. (Idaho.) A bank in Idaho de- 
 ducted from its return of income to the Com- 
 missioner of Internal Revenue, under the Cor- 
 poration Tax Act of 1909, the state taxes 
 which were paid on its shares for the years 
 1909, 1910, 1911. 1912 and 1913. In 'l914 
 the Commissioner claimed that such taxes 
 should not have been deducted and amended 
 tl)e return, requiring the bank to pay an ad- 
 ditional tax on such amounts. Opinion: 
 The Federal decisions hold that such state 
 taxes paid on shares of stock cannot be de- 
 ducted from gross income and the additional 
 tax on such amounts deducted in previous 
 vears should be paid on the amended return. 
 Vol. 6, p. 822, June. 1914. 
 
 1302. (N. C.) T'ndcr a North Carolina 
 statute, a tax is assessed against the value of 
 shares in national banks for school, county 
 and municipal purjioscs to be paid by the 
 bank and dedmted from dividends. A bank 
 questions the right of the state to collect from 
 it taxes assessed agaiiist certain of its stock- 
 holders, resident in Alabama, where it asserts, 
 
 159
 
 i3o;i 
 
 DIGEST OF LEGAL OPIXIOXS 
 
 such stockholders nro also rompollod to list 
 and j)ay taxes on such shares under the laws 
 of Alai)ania. Opinion: Under the National 
 Bank Act shares of non-residents must be 
 taxed in the place where tiie hank is located 
 and "not elsewhere." It would, therefore, 
 he unlawful to tax such shares in Alabama 
 and there would be no double taxation. It is 
 lawful for a state to require a national bank 
 to collect the tax out of the shareholder's 
 dividends and pav it as his agent. Vol. 2, 
 p. 374, March, 1910. 
 
 1303. (Tenn.) A hank in Tennessee in 
 making its return under the United States 
 Income Tax Law, deducted as expenses from 
 its gross income the taxes assessed against its 
 shareholders, but ]iaid by the bank to the 
 state. A provision of said law allows a cor- 
 poration to deduct from the gross income "all 
 sums paid by it within the year for taxes im- 
 posed." The department of Internal Eev- 
 enue claimed that such deduction was not 
 lawful. Opinion: Where taxes are assessed 
 against bank stockholders as upon their prop- 
 erty, though paid by the bank, the Federal 
 courts hold tlie bank cannot deduct the taxes 
 so paid from its gross income, such taxes not 
 being assessed against the corporation or 
 its property. Vol. 7, p. 774, April, 1915. 
 
 Discrimination in assessment 
 
 1304. (Miss.) A bank complains 
 against discrimination of the state in taxing 
 national bank stock on full book value, w^hile 
 real estate and other kinds of property are 
 taxed only on a small percentage of actual 
 value. Opinion: The taxation of national 
 bank shares at a higher rate than moneyed 
 capital invested in real estate, stock and other 
 kinds of property, has been held not a viola- 
 tion of the anti-discrimination provision of 
 Section 529, U. S. Eevised Statutes, where 
 the "moneyed capital" so under-taxed is not 
 used in competition with that of national 
 banks. Vol. 9, p. 909, May, 1917. 
 
 1305. (Okla.) In some parts of the 
 state of Oklahoma, national bank shares are 
 assessed for purposes of taxation at full val- 
 uation of 100 per cent., while in other parts 
 of the state, shares of state and national 
 banks are assessed at only 65 per cent, of 
 their actual value. A national bank assessed 
 at full value claimed that it has been dis- 
 criminated against and demands relief. 
 Opinion: In order to get relief from such 
 discrimination the national bank would have 
 to prove at least three things — (1) that the 
 
 under-valued capital in one part of the state 
 is in comi)etition with the fully valued na- 
 tional bank shares in another part; (2) that 
 sucii undervaluation constitutes a discrimina- 
 tion in the proportionate amout of taxes lev- 
 ied for state purposes, as distinguished from 
 county and city purposes; and (3) that such 
 discrimination is systematic and intentional, 
 and not merely desultory and accidental. 
 Vol. 3, p. 582, April, 1911. 
 
 Erroneous return 
 
 1306. (Tenn.) Under the Corporation 
 Excise Tax Law of 1909 and the Income Tax 
 Law of 1913, where there is an erroneous re- 
 turn, discovery of the error must be made by 
 the Commissioner of Internal Eevenue with- 
 in three vears from the time the return is due. 
 Vol. 7, p. 775, April, 1915. 
 
 Federal income tax law 
 
 1307. (Porto Rico.) The Federal In- 
 come Tax Law, approved September 8, 1916, 
 is not unconstitutional because it imposes a 
 tax of 2 per cent, upon incomes received dur- 
 ing 1916, prior to the enactment of the law. 
 Vol. 9, p. 658, Feb., 1917. 
 
 Tax for fraction of year 
 
 1308. (N. Dak.) The stockholders of a 
 state bank organized after April 1 are not 
 liable to taxation for the current year, accord- 
 ing to a statute passed in North Dakota in 
 1913. Vol. 9, p. 749, March, 1917. 
 
 Occupation tax 
 See 1321 
 
 1309. (Idaho.) A national bank cannot 
 be forced to pay an occupation tax imposed 
 by the state. It has been repeatedly held that 
 a state has no power to tax national banks 
 except as Congress permits, and Congress has 
 not authorized any taxation of national banks 
 by the states, except as to real estate, but only 
 a taxation upon the shares of national banks 
 to the individual shareholders, subject to cer- 
 tain restrictions. Vol. 1, p. 169, Xov., 1908. 
 
 1310. (Okla.) States or municipalities 
 have no power to impose special or occupa- 
 tion taxes upon national banks. Vol. 3, p. 
 468, Feb., 1911. 
 
 Taxation of choses in action 
 
 1311. (Okla.) Oklahoma session law 
 passed in 1917 providing for payment of a 
 tax on bonds, notes and choses in action and 
 
 160
 
 TAXATION 
 
 1320 
 
 excluding from the courts all such instru- 
 ments not registered and upon which the tax 
 is not paid in accordance with the Act, lias for 
 its underlying purpose the taxation of a class 
 of intangible personal property which would 
 otherwise escape taxation, Kegistration is 
 compulsory. It does not provide for double 
 taxation of banks holding such bonds, notes 
 or choses in action. A similar law exists in 
 Connecticut, and there is a general movement 
 among the states to provide methods by which 
 a larger share of personal property is subject 
 to taxation. Vol. 10, p. 44, July, 1917. 
 
 Penalty for delayed return 
 
 1312. (Miss.) A bank mailed its cor- 
 poration tax return to the Collector of Inter- 
 nal Ee venue on March 1st. The same was 
 not received by the collector until a day late 
 and a penalty of fifty per cent was imposed. 
 Opinion: That the return was made on 
 March 1st by placing it in the post-office at 
 that time. The safest course is for the bank 
 to pay the tax, plus the penalty, under pro- 
 test and to request of the Commissioner of 
 Internal Revenue that the penalty be re- 
 mitted, because the facts do not warrant the 
 imposition of such a heavv penaltv. Vol. 3, 
 p. 10, July, 1910. 
 
 1313. (Okla.) A bank made its annual 
 return for the Federal corporation tax before 
 March 1, 1911, but through an error of its 
 mailing clerk, made unintentionally, the re- 
 turn did not reach the collector until March 
 4, 1911. The law requires a return to be 
 made on or before March 1st and in case of 
 "refusal or neglect" autliorizes a penalty of 
 fifty per cent, additional. The collector in- 
 sists on collecting a substantial penalty. 
 Opinion: There being no wilful neglect by 
 the bank, a fifty per cent, penalty seems un- 
 just and should be remitted. The proper 
 course is to write the Commissioner of Inter- 
 nal Revenue at Washington imless a compro- 
 mise is made with the collector. Vol. 4, p. 
 152, Sept., 1911. 
 
 Savings deposits not exempted 
 
 1314. (N. Y.) Opinion that savings de- 
 posit in interest department of national bank 
 not exempted from taxation by provision of 
 tax law of New York exempting "the de- 
 posits in anv bank for savings which are due 
 depositors."" Vol. 7, p. 100, Aug., 1914. 
 
 1315. (Pa.) The statutes of Pennsyl- 
 vania do not exempt savings deposits from 
 taxation and such deposits are subject to the 
 
 four mill tax for state purposes as part of the 
 personal property of the depositor under the 
 Act of ilav 11, 1911. Vol. 9, p. 910, May, 
 1917. 
 
 Secured Debts Tax Law of New York 
 
 1316. (N. Y.) The question is raised 
 whether national and state banks, because of 
 the 1 per cent, tax on bank shares in lieu of 
 all other taxation, except real estate taxed 
 directly to the bank, do or do not come mulor 
 the provisions of the newly enacted Secured 
 Debts Tax Law of New York because of se- 
 cured debts owned by tlie bank ; and wliether 
 there is any ditrerence in the status of nation- 
 al and state banks in this regard. Opinion: 
 A national or stflte bank owning secured debts 
 is not taxable under the Secured Debts Tax 
 Law, the latter because exempted from all 
 taxation on personal property by Section 24 
 of the Tax Law, in view of the tax on shares, 
 and the former class of banks for the addi- 
 tional reason that the stiite cannot, in any 
 event, tax a national bank upon its personal 
 property. Vol. 8, p. 417, Nov., 1915. 
 
 Stamp tax 
 
 1317. (Ark.) A note was made and 
 dated prior to December 1, 1914, but nego- 
 tiated to the payee bank on or after that date. 
 The Federal Act of October 22, 1914, pro- 
 vides among other things for a stamp tax on 
 promissory notes to be levied on and after 
 December 1, 1914. Opinion: The promis- 
 sory note required a stamp to be cancelled as 
 of the date of deliverv to the bank. Vol. 7, 
 p. 494, Jan., 1915. 
 
 1318. (Md.) Under the War Revenue 
 Act of 1914, a stamp tax of $2 per $100 is 
 placed on a promissory note and there is no 
 tax on the mortgage securing said note. Vol. 
 7, p. 380, Dec, 1914. 
 
 1319. (Minn.) All promissory notes, 
 including demand notes, are subject to stamp 
 tax of 2 cents for $100 or fraction tlioroof, 
 except that promissory notes issued on or 
 after April 0, 1918, secured by United States 
 bonds and obligations issued after April 2-1, 
 l!n7, are exempt from stamp tax. Vol. 11, 
 p. 392, Jan., lit 19. 
 
 1320. (N. J.) A transferred shans of 
 stock to I^ with a 10 cent Internal Revenue 
 stamp aflixed. A new certificate was isniird 
 to V> and the old certificate was cancelled. 
 The question was raised whether or not tlie 
 new certificate required a 10 cent stamp. 
 Opinion: Under a ruling by the Conimis- 
 
 101
 
 1321 
 
 DIOEST OF LEGAL OPINION'S 
 
 sioiior of Intornal Rovcnuo, no stamp is re- 
 quired on the n(>\v certificate. Vol. 7, p. 
 4!)r), Jan., IDIT). 
 
 State taxation of national banks 
 
 S(M' i;;()i, i.'fo,") 
 
 1321. (Cal.) A state or city has no 
 power to inii)osc a license or privilege tax 
 upon the national hanks. Vol. 7, p. 304, 
 Nov., 1!)1 !. See 1309, 1310. 
 
 1322. (Mo.) Income Tax Law of Mis- 
 souri imposing one-half of 1 per cent, tax 
 upon net incomes of individuals and corpor- 
 ations is inapplicable to national banks and 
 not enforceable against such institutions, as 
 the states cannot tax national banks except 
 as Congress permits and Section 5219, U. S. 
 Eev. Stat., which is the measure of permis- 
 sion by Congress, does not authorize such a 
 tax. Vol. 11, p. 410, Feb., 1919. 
 
 1323. (N. C.) An incorporated town in 
 North Carolina lias the right to assess for 
 town purposes the stock of national bank 
 shareholders owned by non-residents of the 
 state and to require the bank to pay the taxes 
 so assessed. Vol. 9, p. 503, Dec, 1916. 
 
 1324. (Okla.) A county tax assessor 
 sought to compel a national bank officer to 
 furnish a list of the names of shareholders 
 and the number of shares held by each. 
 Opinion: Under the Oklahoma statute, the 
 county assessor had the right to compel the 
 bank officer to furnish the list. The Supreme 
 Court of the United States has upheld such 
 
 right in a state official, acting pursuant to 
 state law. It lias been held that national 
 banks are subject to state legislation, except 
 where such legislation is in conflict with 
 some act of Congress or where it tends to 
 impair or destroy the utility of such banks 
 as agents or instrumentalities of the United 
 States, or interferes with the purpose of their 
 creation. Vol. 9, p. 140, Aug., 191(5. See 
 S7'?. 
 
 1325. (S. C.) It would seem that a 
 state has a right, in providing for the taxation 
 of national bank shares, to permit the owner 
 to deduct the value of non-taxable state bonds 
 owned by the bank, although denying to the 
 shareholder the right to deduct the value of 
 non-taxable United States Government bonds 
 so owned, the refu.-al to permit such deduc- 
 tion in the latter case being upheld by the 
 Supreme Court of the L'nited States. Vol. 
 9, p. 410, Nov., 1916. 
 
 Transfer tax of decedent 
 
 1326. (N. J.) A deposit of a non-resi- 
 dent decedent in a New York Savings bank 
 is subject to the Transfer Tax. The same 
 rule applies to similar deposits in a Trust 
 Company. Vol. 3, p. 675, May, 1911. 
 
 Treasury notes subject to taxation 
 
 1327. (N. C.) United Slates Treasury 
 notes are subject to state taxation as money 
 on hand or on deposit. Vol. 7, p. 898, Mav, 
 1915. 
 
 TRADE ACCEPTANCES 
 
 Acceptance payable at bank in another 
 locality 
 
 1328. (N. Y.) In view of the rule of 
 law that an acceptance made payable at an- 
 other place varies the terms of the bill as 
 drawn and discharges non-consenting parties, 
 it has been thouglit desirable to have inserted 
 in the instrument a clause protecting the 
 holder. Opinion: The following clause is 
 suggested : "The drawee may accept this bill, 
 payal)le at any bank, banker or trust company 
 in the United States which he may desig- 
 nate." This clause will operate to hold the 
 drawer and indorsers liable to the holder who 
 takes an acceptance pavable at a bank in an- 
 other state. Vol. 10. p. 461, Dec, 1917. 
 
 Completing signature of drawer after 
 acceptance 
 
 1329. (N. Y.) It has been the custom 
 among merchants to send out trade accep- 
 
 tances with only a printed signature of the 
 drawer, as for example "'Smith Manufactur- 
 ing Company," underneath which is a blank 
 line starting with the word "By." After the 
 acceptor has signed and mailed the instru- 
 ment back to the drawer there is added in 
 pen and ink after the word "By" the words 
 "John Smith, Treasurer." The purpose of 
 the foregoing is to protect the instrument 
 should it be lost in the mail or otherwise fall 
 into improper hands. The question is raised 
 whether there has been a material alteration 
 which would entitle the acceptor to repudiate 
 his obligation. Opinion: The completion of 
 the drawer's signature after the instrument 
 has been returned, accepted, would not be a 
 material alteration within the meaning of the 
 law. There is no change in the number or 
 relations of the parties and no change in the 
 legal effect of the instrument and further- 
 more, the execution of the instrument by the 
 
 162
 
 TRADE ACCEPTAXCES 
 
 1335 
 
 acceptor, with the blank unfilled, would con- 
 stitute an implied authority to the drawer to 
 fill in the blank with his completed signature 
 upon return of the instrument to him. Vol. 
 10, p. 526, Jan.,"l918. 
 
 Effect of mechanic's lien rights 
 
 1330. (N. Y.) The question has arisen 
 as to the status of the material man who takes 
 a trade acceptance to cover shipment made 
 to a contractor for use in construction work. 
 Does he thereby lose any mechanic's lien right 
 which he would have had under the open 
 book accoiuit system? Does he become a 
 money creditor in place of a creditor for ma- 
 terial? Opinion: The material man who 
 takes a trade acceptance for material supplied 
 does not thereby lose mechanic's lien right 
 which he otherwise might have. The right 
 to enforce the lien would, however, be sus- 
 pended until maturity of the acceptance and 
 a pre-reqnisite to sucli right of enforcement 
 would be a tender of the return of the trade 
 acceptance as a condition precedent. If he 
 has negotiated same and cannot return it, the 
 mechanic's lien ri^ht would not be enforce- 
 able. Vol. 10, p. 591, Feb., 1918. 
 
 Negotiability 
 
 1331. (Cal.) When a trade acceptance is 
 not paid when due, the acceptor is liable for 
 the principal and interest. The drawer is 
 also lial)le, provided the necessary steps upon 
 dishonor are taken. Under the provisions of 
 the California statute a trade acceptance is a 
 negotiable instrument. Vol. 9, p. 501, Dec, 
 1916. 
 
 1332. (111.) A firm in Chicago has pre- 
 pared a form of trade acceptance, using the 
 standard form, but changing it to read: "Ac- 
 cepted (date.) Payable at (designated bank 
 or trust company) with Chicago or New 
 York exchange." A bank desires to know 
 whether the addition of the words "with Chi- 
 cago or Xew York exchange'' will destroy the 
 negotiability of the acceptance. Opinion: 
 The insertion of the words will not affect ne- 
 gotiability. The Negotiable Instruments 
 Act expressly provides : "Sec. 2. The sum 
 payable is a sum certain within the meaning 
 of the act, although it is to be paid x x x 
 4, with exchange, whether at a fixed rate or 
 at the current rate x x x ." Vol. 11, 
 p. 39, July, 1918. 
 
 1333. (Minn.) A business house uses 
 the regular form of trade acceptance and 
 prints on the face of the acceptance the fol- 
 
 lowing words: "5 per cent, discount will be 
 allowed if this acceptance is taken up within 
 thirty days from date." The business house 
 holds the acceptance until the thirty-day 
 period has expired. If the buyer sends them 
 the money they allow him 5 per cent, dis- 
 count, cancel the trade acceptance and return 
 it to him. If lie does not pay in thirty days 
 they offer the trade acceptance to the bank 
 for discount. At the time the acceptance is 
 thus offered, the discount clause means noth- 
 ing, for the discount period has expire<l. The 
 bank, however, desires to be sure that the ne- 
 gotiability of the acceptance has not been de- 
 stroyed by the added words. Opxnvm: A 
 Minnesota case holds that a provision of this 
 character does not affect negotial)ility. it 
 being stated that it did not make the instru- 
 ment uncertain as to amount. On the other 
 hand a decision in North Dakota holds that 
 such a provision renders an instrument non- 
 negotiable. Although the courts take differ- 
 ent views on the proposition, the ^linnesota 
 court seems to hold the better view. Vol. 11, 
 p. 39. July, 1918. 
 
 Trade acceptance propaganda not in re- 
 straint of trade 
 
 1334. (N. Y.) Various trade associa- 
 tions have adopted or are about to adopt res- 
 olutions recommending to their members, in 
 effect, that trade acceptances be substituted 
 for open accounts and that uniform terms of 
 credit based upon trade acceptances be 
 adopted. The question is asked wiiether co- 
 operation along the lines covered by the reso- 
 lutions is in contravention of the Sherman 
 Anti-Trust Law. Opinion: Sec. 1, Act July 
 2, 1890, provides that "Every contract, com- 
 bination in the form of trust or otherwise, or 
 conspiracy in restrain of trade or commerce 
 among the several states, or with foreign na- 
 tions, is hereby declared to be illegal. Every 
 person who shall make any such contract or 
 engage in any such combination or conspir- 
 acy, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemean- 
 or,'' etc. No violation of the foregoing would 
 result. Tiie action contemplated by the trade 
 associations would tend to promote rather 
 than restrain interstate trade. It, of course, 
 is not contemplated that members or others 
 not adojning the scheme should be boycotted 
 and refused all manner of credit, which would 
 present a ditfi^rent situation. Vol. 10, p. 
 375, Nov., 19 ir. 
 
 Overdue trade acceptance payable at bank 
 
 1335. (N. Y.) A makes his trade ac- 
 ceptance payable at a bank and at maturity 
 
 163
 
 1336 
 
 DIGEST OF LEGAL OPINIONS 
 
 makes payment to tlic holder but allows the 
 latter to retain the acccptimce. The holder 
 in defraud of A, presents the acceptance to 
 the hank after maturity and receives payment 
 and it is ehiir^a'd to A's account. Should the 
 bank reciuire an express instruction from the 
 maker before niakiiifj payment? Opinion: 
 The safest course for the bank is to obtain 
 the express instruction from the maker before 
 payment of the trade acceptance. It is a 
 serious question, still undecided by the courts, 
 whether the authority of the hank to pay con- 
 tinues after maturity and whether the fact 
 that the trade acceptance is overdue when 
 presented at the bank is not sufTicient to put 
 the bank upon inquiry of the acceptor before 
 making pavment. Vol. 10, p. 849, June, 
 1918. 
 
 1336. (Wash.) Wliere n nore or trade 
 acceptance maturing at a fixed or determin- 
 able future time is made payable at the 
 maker's bank and is not presented for pay- 
 ment until after the due date, opinions differ 
 as to the authority of the bank to pay without 
 express instructions from its customer. An 
 Australian decision that the bank's authority 
 to pay continues after maturity until counter- 
 manded, is not regarded as controlling in this 
 country. The precise point has never been 
 decided in this country. It would be desir- 
 able to pass an amendment of the Negotiable 
 Instruments Law which would provide a de- 
 finite rule on this point. Such an amend- 
 ment has been passed in Missouri as follows : 
 "WTiere the instrument is made payable at a 
 bank it is equivalent to an order to the bank 
 to pay the same for the account of the prin- 
 cipal debtor thereon, but where the instru- 
 ment is made payable at a fixed or determin- 
 able future time, the order to the bank is 
 limited to the date of maturity only." Or it 
 might prove more advantageous for the 
 amendment to provide that a bank may pay 
 overdue acceptances and notes within a rea- 
 sonable time after maturitv. Vol. 10, p. 
 711, April, 1918. 
 
 Payment by acceptor's bank 
 
 1337. (N. Y.) The question has arisen 
 whether, when a trade acceptance is made 
 
 payable at a bank, the bank has the right to 
 charge the amount up against the acceptor's 
 account upon presentment at maturity, with- 
 out express instructions from the maker of the 
 acceptance, the same as it would charge up 
 a customer's check upon payment. Opinion: 
 Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 
 provides: "Where the instrument is made 
 payable at a bank, it is equivalent to an order 
 to the bank to pay the same for the account 
 of the principal dclitor thereon." Under this 
 provision the bank would not only be author- 
 ized, but it would be its duty, where the ac- 
 ceptor's funds were sufficient, to pay the ac- 
 ceptance upon presentment at maturity with- 
 out express instructions from the maker to 
 that end. In Illinois, Nebraska, South Da- 
 kota, Kansas and Minnesota, the above quoted 
 section has been either omitted or repealed 
 and therefore in those states some express 
 instructions from the customer would be 
 necessary before the bank could pay his 
 acceptance, unless the bank itself owned the 
 acceptance, in which case it would be charge- 
 able to the customer's account bv way of set 
 off. Vol. 10, p. 461, Dec, 1917. 
 
 Seller's right of replevin 
 
 1338. (N. Y.) The seller of goods re- 
 ceiving a trade acceptance asks if he is in any 
 worse position so far as his right of replevin 
 goes than the seller of goods who simply 
 charges the purchase price to the purchaser on 
 an open account. Opinion: In any case 
 where goods have been sold and delivered, and 
 an action of replevin would lie on behalf of 
 the seller because of some breach of contract 
 or fraud entitling him to annul the contract 
 and seize the goods as still his property, the 
 only difference between the position of the 
 seller who takes a trade acceptance and one 
 who has charged the amount in open ac- 
 count, would seem to be this : In an action of 
 replevin where a trade acceptance has been 
 taken and the seller seeks to rescind the con- 
 tract, a pre-requisite would be a tender of the 
 return of the instrument as a condition pre- 
 cedent to the right of recovery. Vol. 10, p. 
 461, Dec, 1917. 
 
 1339. 
 
 TRANSFER OF STOCK 
 
 See 220, 236, 240, 241, 463, 464 
 
 Book transfers 
 (Kan.) The owner of fifty shares 
 
 of national bank stock seeks to divide the 
 same equally among his five children. He 
 
 assigns each certificate in blank, leaving them 
 in a safe deposit box to be delivered upon his 
 death. The purpose is to avoid payment of 
 the national inheritance tax. Can the bank 
 
 164
 
 TRANSFER OF STOCK 
 
 1345 
 
 legally transfer said stock without making 
 a transfer on the books? Opinion: A valid 
 gift of bank stock may be effected by delivery 
 of same to the bank to be delivered to the 
 donee upon death of the donor, provided 
 there is an absolute and unequivocal sur- 
 render by the donor of dominion over the 
 stock and it is clearly indicated that the bank 
 is constituted trustee of the donee and not 
 mere agent of the donor. Regarding the 
 bank as trustee, the necessity of transferring 
 the stock on the books could possibly be dis- 
 pensed with. In case of sale of bank stock 
 it has been held that title to national bank 
 shares is transferred by delivery of the cer- 
 tificate with power of attorney indorsed in 
 blank, without the necessity of transfer on the 
 books and presumably the same rule would 
 apply to a gift of bank stock. Yol. 11, p. 
 41, July, 1918. 
 
 1340. (N. J.) A signed a transfer and 
 power of attorney on a stock certificate and 
 delivered it to B for value. Before B had 
 the stock transferred on the books of the cor- 
 poration, A died. Opinion: A's subsequent 
 death did not affect B's rights to a transfer on 
 the books. In a case where A's death oc- 
 curred before the delivery of the certificate to 
 B, it is doubtful if the subsequent delivery 
 would be effectual. Vol. 5, p. 312, Nov., 
 1912. 
 
 1341. (N. C.) It is not necessary, under 
 the law of North Carolina, for a bank holding 
 shares of a North Carolina corporation as 
 collateral security to have the same trans- 
 ferred on the books of the corporation. 
 Transfer on the books is not necessary to 
 protect the stock against the attacliing cred- 
 itors of the pledgor. Vol. 1, p. 2G8, Jan., 
 1909. 
 
 1342. (N. Dak.) A bank in North Da- 
 kota loaned money ujKjn a pledge of stock of 
 a corporation in Montana. Being unable to 
 collect the loan, the bank requested that the 
 stock be transferred on the books of the cor- 
 poration and a new certificate issued to it in 
 exchange for the original one. The corpor- 
 ation refused the request, stating that at a 
 directors' meeting it was decided to cancel the 
 certificate of stock, as the stockholder had not 
 lived up to his agreement witli the corpora- 
 tion. Opinion : The hank has the right, upon 
 the default of the pledgor, to have the stock 
 transferred upon the books of the corporation 
 and a new certificate is issued to it, upon com- 
 pliance with the statutory requirements, and 
 the corporation is estopped from alleging the 
 invalidity of the stock because the holder 
 did not live up to his agreement with the cor- 
 poration. Vol. 11, p. 2T8, Nov., 1918. 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS 
 
 Attorney's delay in bringing suit 
 
 1343. (Fla.) An attorney following his 
 client's instructions, sued and recovered 
 judgment from A, the maker of a note. The 
 judgment against A was worthless, but the 
 amount was recoverable from two bondsmen 
 who had become sureties for A. Through 
 the attorney's negligence the bondsmen were 
 not sued and later one died and the other 
 became a bankrupt. Opinion: Where attor- 
 ney has specific instructions to proceed 
 against bondsmen, or, without specific in- 
 structions, is under duty to take necessary 
 legal steps to enforce liability and negligently 
 puts off bringing suit until claim against 
 bondsmen becomes worthless, he becomes 
 liable to client for damages suffered. Vol. 
 6, p. 214, Sept., 1913. 
 
 Contract to pay commission on sale 
 
 1344. (Ga.) A entered into a written 
 contract with a real estate agency, wherein 
 
 the agency was given power of attorney to 
 sell A's house for $1,000 within thirty days, 
 and upon cancellation of the contract by A 
 before its expiration A was obliged to jiay 
 the agency the five per cent, commission. A 
 cancelled the contract and the agency de- 
 manded the commission. Opinion: The 
 agency may recover the commission, because 
 the contract was founded upon sufficient con- 
 sideration. A employed the agency as l)rok- 
 ers to sell, and such employment was sufficient 
 consideration to support A's promise. Vol. 
 5, p. 757, May, 191.?. 
 
 Right to change name 
 
 1345. (Cal.) .\ man having the name 
 "Badasci'' wanted to cliange his name to 
 "Badasche." The deeds to his property, his 
 notes, mortgages and insurance policies were 
 executed in his original name. The question 
 was raised by a liank as to whether it was 
 safe in accepting such instruments as col- 
 
 1G5
 
 134G 
 
 DIGEST OF LEGAL OPINIONS 
 
 latt'rnl from the lioldcr whoso name was 
 cliaiiffod without court order. Opinion: The 
 man has a common hiw ri<^ht to change his 
 name without court order but in transferring 
 his ])ro{)crty and contract rights there may 
 1)0 dilliculty in proving identity and it would 
 be more desirable to obtain a court order, 
 making tlic change a matter of record and 
 })r(n)f, unless the names are to be regarded as 
 idem sonans, wlicn such diificulty of proving 
 identity would not arise. It is unsafe for a 
 bank to accept the instrument as collateral 
 because of the difficulty of proof of identity 
 which could be obviated by a court order. 
 Statutes providing for a change of name by 
 judicial proceeding do not affect, but are in 
 aid of the common law right l)y affording an 
 easier means of proof of identity. Vol. 8, p. 
 702, Feb., 1916. 
 
 Voting pov/er of American Bankers Asso- 
 ciation delegate 
 
 1346. (Va.) Opinion that under the 
 constitution of American Bankers Associa- 
 tion and also of Virginia Bankers Association 
 a delegate is entitled to but one vote upon any 
 question, even though he may represent as a 
 delegate more than one member institution. 
 Vol. 4, p. 91, Aug., 1911. 
 
 Payment and credit of overdraft as 
 deposit 
 
 See 297, 208 
 
 1347. (Wis.) John Smith has an ac- 
 count at Bank A and presents the check of 
 Jones drawn on the same Imnk at the paying 
 teller's window and receives cash for the 
 same. Jones had not sufficient deposit to 
 protect the check and the bank asks if it can 
 charge back the overdraft to Smith's account. 
 Opinion: The great weight of authority is to 
 the effect that a payment of a check to a 
 bona fide holder in the ordinary course of 
 business by the bank upon which it is drawn, 
 under the mistaken belief that the drawer 
 has funds in bank subject to check, is final 
 and irrevocable and not such payment under 
 mistake of fact as will permit the bank to 
 recover the money so paid. Bank A having 
 paid Jones' overdraft to Smith in cash, the 
 latter is not liable to refund the money and 
 the bank cannot charge the same to his ac- 
 count. Vol. 6, p. G25, Mar., 1914. 
 
 1348. (Wis.) John Smith deposits with 
 the receiving teller of his bank a check drawn 
 on the same bank and receives credit for the 
 same. Later it appears that the maker of 
 
 the clieck had not sufficient funds to protect 
 the check. The Ijank asks if it can right- 
 fully charge back the overdraft to Smith's 
 account. Opinion: Where an overdraft of 
 one depositor is olfered for deposit by another 
 and credited to tlie latter's account, tlie legal 
 effect, according to a number of authorities 
 is the same as if the money was first paid 
 out and redepositcd ; in other words, the 
 ])ayment by credit to account is final and 
 irrevocable. But in California the courts 
 hold that a bank which receives a deposit of 
 a check drawn on the same bank takes the 
 same for collection from itself and can cancel 
 the credit upon discovering on the same day 
 that it is an overdraft. And (according to a 
 Pennsylvania case) where a dejK)sitor knows 
 that the drawer has no funds lie is guilty of 
 fraud which will justify charging the check 
 back. Furtliermore, as was held in a New 
 York case, it is competent for the bank to 
 credit the depositor's account conditionally, 
 that is upon condition that if upon examina- 
 tion the check is found not good it will be 
 charged back. And a recent decision in the 
 Court of Appeals of Missouri is to the effect 
 that where the bank can prove a custom to 
 charge back, this will entitle the bank to 
 cancel the credit. In the light of the forego- 
 ing. Bank A cannot charge back to the ac- 
 count of Smith the check of another depositor 
 which has been placed to his credit upon 
 later discovering such check is an overdraft 
 unless (1) Smith knew that the check was 
 not good at the time he deposited it, or 
 (2) Bank A had an agreement with Smith 
 that the deposit should be conditional upon 
 examination as to the state of the drawer's 
 account, or (3) Bank A can prove an estab- 
 lished custom among the banks of the city 
 known to Smith of charging back later in the 
 day if the deposit is found to be an overdraft. 
 The latter is on the authority of the ^lissouvi 
 case and may not be universally followed. 
 To protect the bank in such cases it would 
 seem advisable to print a notice in the pass- 
 books or on the deposit slips of customers to 
 the effect that such deposits will be credited 
 conditionally and if not found good at the 
 close of business will be charged back and 
 depositors notified. Vol. 6, p. 62o, Mar., 
 1914. 
 
 1349. (Wis.) John Smith deposits in 
 Bank A a check of Jones drawn on a New 
 York bank and receives credit for the same. 
 Payment of the check is refused by the New 
 York bank. Bank A asks if it can charge 
 back the item to Smith's account. It also 
 
 166
 
 MISCELLANEOUS 
 
 1350 
 
 asks if Smith had received cash couhl his ac- 
 count still be charged. Opinion: The hank 
 of deposit has the right to charge the amount 
 back to Smith's account, but care must be 
 taken to preserve Smith's liability as in- 
 dorser, assuming he has transferred title to 
 the bank and not merely deposited it for col- 
 lection. Smith being duly charged as in- 
 dorser, he would be indebted on the chock 
 to the bank and even though cash had been 
 paid to him, the bank would have the right to 
 set off such indebtedness to his account. Vol. 
 6, p. 625, Mar., 1914. 
 
 1350. (N. Y.) Li Oddie v. Xational 
 City Bank, 45 N. Y., 735, the court held 
 that where the check of one depositor is de- 
 posited by another, and the teller gives him 
 credit therefor, such credit cannot be revoked 
 upon finding the check was not good. A Xew 
 York bank complains that this decision seems 
 unfair and is contrary to the decisions of 
 other states. It asks if this decision is still 
 law in New York, and if it would be possible 
 for a bank to protect itself by some sort of 
 contract or agreement printed in its pass- 
 books or on its deposit slips or both to the 
 
 effect that all checks received on deposit are 
 subject to final payment. Opinion: The rule 
 established in Oddie v. Xational City Bank 
 that a credit in a depositor's passbook of an 
 overdraft of another depositor is final and 
 irrevocable has not been overturne^l in New 
 York. Decisions in other states conflict. 
 The same rule has been held in Alabama and 
 Pennsylvania. On the other hand, in Cali- 
 fornia, it has been hold that "when a dieck 
 on the same bank is presented by a depositor 
 with his passbook to the receiving teller, and 
 he merely receives tiie check and notes it in 
 the passbook, nothing more being said or 
 done, this does not of itself raise the pre- 
 sumption that the check was received as 
 cash or otherwise than for collection." This 
 rule is the more equitable one, but it cannot 
 be said to be the law of New York ; therefore 
 it would be advisable to print on the dcjwsit 
 slip and probably also in the passbook a 
 properly worded clause giving the bank the 
 right to charge back a wrongly credited over- 
 draft on itself at any time before the close of 
 business on the same dav. Vol. 5, v. 50n, 
 Mar., 1913. 
 
 167
 
 INDEX 
 
 ACCEPTANCE AND CERTIFICATION 
 
 Opinion Numbers 
 
 Acceptance after banking hours 1 
 
 Acceptance indorsed on back of bill 883 
 
 Acceptance must be written 2-7 
 
 Acceptance on note 8 
 
 Alteration of check after certification 85 
 
 Bank's obligation to pay, not to certify 9-1 1 
 
 Bank officer's authority to certify 3(5 
 
 Certification equivalent to acceptance 15 
 
 Certified check holder not a preferred creditor 208 
 
 Certified checks, stopping payment of 50 
 
 Certifying bank's liability to fraudulent holder 16 
 
 Check against uncollected funds 429 
 
 Check without funds 36 
 
 Drawer's liability on accepted draft 17 
 
 Duty to request certification 386 
 
 Effect of remittance stamp 347 
 
 Forged checks 18-20 
 
 Fraud, check obtained through 22 
 
 Guarantees signature and sufficiency of funds 21 
 
 Holder in due course 22 
 
 Immediately charging customer's account 26 
 
 Indorsement must be properly made 23-25 
 
 Language expressing certification construed 27-34 
 
 Letters "O.K." as certification. 35-36 
 
 Limitation as to time 37-38 
 
 Outstanding certified checks 39-42 
 
 Overdraft, criminal penalty 35 
 
 Post dated checks 12-14 
 
 Raised check 47 
 
 Revocation of mistaken certification of stopped check 48 
 
 Rule of 24 hours for acceptance 43-16 
 
 Stamp including amount certified not advantageous 49 
 
 Stamp to indicate whether at request of drawer or holder lt> 
 
 Statute of limitations 39-U 
 
 Stranger, certification for 21 
 
 Telegraph, certification by 51-55 
 
 Telephone, certification by 56-65 
 
 Trade acceptances . 132S-133S 
 
 ACCOMMODATION IND0R8ERS 
 
 Accommodation and commercial paper distinguished 66 
 
 Corporation's power to act as accommodation indorser 130, 994 
 
 Entitled to notice of dishonor . .76, 1022-1024, 1173 
 
 Illegality as a defen.se 77 
 
 Indorsement after delivery 67-69 
 
 Liability 70-72 
 
 Liability as between themselves 73-75 
 
 Liability on corporation note 76-77, 1023 
 
 Married woman as accommodation indorser 834-843 
 
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT 
 See Notaries
 
 ADMINISTRATOR 
 See Executor and Administrator 
 
 ADVERTISEMENT 
 
 Opinion Numt)C'r8 
 
 A<lvorti.siii{2; for "savings" accountH 188-870 
 
 Advcrtining of capital 78 
 
 Advertising with U. S. flag 79-81 
 
 AGENCY 
 
 Authority of agent to indorse 671-678 
 
 Bank as agent to procure loan 167 
 
 Bank's liabiHty for viohition of instructions 2o0, 3G8 
 
 Bank not chargeable with knowledge in possession of director 194 
 
 Death of principal revokes authority 451 
 
 Liability of bank for unauthorized act of cashier 195 
 
 Note collected by agent without authority 990 
 
 Notice of dishonor by agent to principal 1025 
 
 Payment of check to infant agent 848 
 
 Power of attorney coupled with interest 462-463, 1074 
 
 Protest by notary's clerk 1111 
 
 Railroad carrying mail as public agent 832 
 
 Set off against deposit marked "agent" 1222 
 
 Telegraph operator as accepting bank's agent 51 
 
 ALTERED AND RAISED PAPER 
 
 See Forgery 
 
 Blank form of another bank used 82-84 
 
 Certification of raised check 47 
 
 Check raised after certification 85 
 
 "Collection " rubber stamped on instrument 86 
 
 Duty of care in preparing checks 93, 341-344 
 
 Erasure by acid 87-88 
 
 Erasure of interest clause 746 
 
 Liability for paj'ment 89-94 
 
 Material alteration 95-96 
 
 Place of pajonent altered 97-98 
 
 Protest of check with altered date 1110 
 
 Raised checks 99-100 
 
 Recovery by drawee from accommodation indorser of raised check 70 
 
 Recovery of money paid 101-107 
 
 Statement of consideration, altered lOS-1 1 1 
 
 Time of payment altered 112-115 
 
 Written in lead pencil 116 
 
 ASSIGNMENT 
 See Pledge and Collateral 
 
 Check as an assignment 450-46 1 
 
 Notice of assignment 1046-1047 
 
 Of account 1046-1047, 1062 
 
 Of deposit 465-467 
 
 Of life insurance policy 1073 
 
 Of passbook 1037-1040 
 
 Set off against assigned deposit '. 1226 
 
 Transfer of deposit slip 473 
 
 ii
 
 ATTACHMENT AND GARXISHMEXT 
 
 Opinion Numbers 
 
 Account owned by one person in name of another 117 
 
 Attachment of insufficient deposit bj' two creditors 1 IS 
 
 Bank garnished for debt of check holder 1 HVrjO 
 
 Bank not indebted at time writ is served 121-122 
 
 Bank's obligation to disclose balance 123 
 
 Funds represented by certificate of deposit 124-127 
 
 Funds represented by outstanding negotiable instrument . 12JN-130 
 
 Notice with incorrect name 131-132 
 
 Precedence over checks not presented before service of writ 133-135 
 
 Proceedings may be instituted before judgment 139 
 
 Proceeds of bill of lading draft 13G-138 
 
 Property subject to garnishment 140-145 
 
 Set off by bank to defeat attachment 14tj-14S 
 
 ATTORNEY'S FEES 
 
 Attorney's fee note payable at bank 149 
 
 Claim of attorney's fee in bankruptcy loO 
 
 Excessive fee as cover for usury 745 
 
 Negotiability of notes with attorney's fee clause 151-155 
 
 Validity of attorney's fee clause 156-163 
 
 BANKS AND BANKING 
 
 Advertising of capital "S 
 
 Advertising with United States flag 79-Sl 
 
 Bank as agent to procure loan lt>7 
 
 Bank as borrower on personal note of executive officer 168-169 
 
 Bank loans. See Loan and Discount. 
 Banking customs. See Custom. 
 
 Banking hours 1 "0- 1 7 1 
 
 Books and records, examination of 164-165 
 
 Books, use of loose leaves 166 
 
 Branch banks 261-265 
 
 Cashier's unauthorized act, liability for 195-196 
 
 Customer's balance for tax purposes, etc., compulsory disclosure 173-176 
 
 Deposits, no obligation to receive 469-470 
 
 Deposits, unclaimed required to be published 503 
 
 Derogatory statements affecting banking institutions 792-797 
 
 Dishonor of check, liability for wrongful 506-511 
 
 Duty of substituted presentment when check is lost 798, 817-818 
 
 General duty of secrecy as to customer's affairs 172 
 
 Guaranty by bank 17/ -180 
 
 Guaranty of payee's indorsement, right to require 695 
 
 Indemnity bond, covering risk of unauthorized indorsements 181 
 
 Letter of credit, protection against overdraft 105.8-1059 
 
 Liability of bank to checkholder • 345-346 
 
 Liability to bank of pcr.son identifying payee 182 
 
 Lien of stockholder 228-236 
 
 National Banks 870-887 
 
 Notes payable at bank 1007-1021 
 
 Payment to minors and incompetents 844-8.)5 
 
 Postal savings depositary, right to act as 489-190 
 
 Private affairs, investigation by Congressional Committee 184 
 
 Right to pledge assets ^8"' 
 
 Safe depositary, bank as 1^' 
 
 Same room for savings bank and bank 1^' 
 
 "Savings, " by commercial bank, use of word 1^ 
 
 iii
 
 BANKS AND BANKING— Ojntinued 
 
 Opinion Numbers 
 
 Set off 1177-1230 
 
 Statement, due diligence in examining 189 
 
 Statement of customer's financial condition, liability for 190-192 
 
 Statement to procure credit 044 
 
 Taxation of l)ank8 1290-1327 
 
 Ultra Vires Acts 177, 178, 823, 874, 884 
 
 Vouchers returned without receipt unsafe 359 
 
 BANK OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS 
 See Cashier 
 
 Bank as holder of director's note 194 
 
 Bank's liability for officer's false statement 192 
 
 Bank's liability for unauthorized act of cashier 195-196 
 
 Cashier buying liis own note for bank 961 
 
 Cashier of national bank need not be a director 197 
 
 Director of national bank as surety 885 
 
 Duty to deface counterfeit money 19S 
 
 Interlocking bank directorates 199-201 
 
 Loans to bank official 183 
 
 Officer and director as notary 914-957 
 
 Officer as attesting witness 202 
 
 Overdraft by director 203 
 
 Personal liability 204-206 
 
 Power of officer to certify checks 14, 38, 180 
 
 Power to borrow money for use of bank 207 
 
 President of national bank as bond broker 193 
 
 Subpoena duces tecum served on officer 104-165 
 
 BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY 
 
 Assignee of accounts receivable as preferred creditor 1062 
 
 Certified checkholder not a preferred creditor 208 
 
 Claim of attorney's fee 150 
 
 Claim to dividends 209 
 
 Collecting bank's insolvency 410-417 
 
 Depositaries for estates in bankruptcy- 210 
 
 Discharge as bar to unlisted claim 211 
 
 Dividend check of failed national bank 212 
 
 Innocent purchaser of negotiable paper transferred by bankrupt 216 
 
 Liability of transferor of stock to assessment 220 
 
 Liens within four months of bankruptcy 213-214 
 
 Payment of check on insolvent bank 215 
 
 Preference not created where collateral renewed 217-218 
 
 Preferred claim against insolvent collecting bank 416-417 
 
 Property inherited after adjudication 219 
 
 Recovery of paper deposited for collection when bank insolvent 420 
 
 Rights and liabihties as to collection proceeds 410-415 
 
 Right of trustee in bankruptcy to vote national bank shares 242 
 
 Set off against deposit of insolvent borrower 1188, 1190-1193, 1227 
 
 Set off of unmatured note against insolvent's deposit 1224-1230 
 
 BANK STOCK AND STOCKHOLDERS 
 See Corporations, Dividends and Liens 
 
 Bank as lienor can refuse to transfer stock 230, 233-235 
 
 Corporation tax on bank shares 1301 
 
 Dividends 221 
 
 iv
 
 BANK STOCK AND STOCKHOLDERS— Continued 
 
 Opinion Xumbera 
 
 Double liability 222-224 
 
 Holder in due course of lost certificate 808 
 
 Increase of national bank stock 225 
 
 Inspection of books and records 226-227 
 
 Liability of minor as stockholder 845 
 
 Liability of transferor to assessment 220 
 
 Lien of national bank for stockholder's indebtedness .... 230-232, 236 
 
 Lien of state bank for stockholder's indebtedness 22<, 229, 233, 235 
 
 Loan on shares of stock by national bank prohibited 882 
 
 Right to dividends of pledged stock 237-238 
 
 Stockholder as notary 914-957 
 
 Stock issued in name of partnership 239 
 
 Transfer of bank stock 240-241 
 
 Voting ... 242-243 
 
 BILLS OF LADLVG 
 
 Acceptor's liability on B/L draft 244 
 
 Bank's liability for violation of instructions 250 
 
 Collection of B/L draft 367-369 
 
 Consignor cannot change routing 252 
 
 Disclaimer of warrantor liability 257-260 
 
 Effect of absence of shipper's signature 254 
 
 Guaranty of draft by bank 178 
 
 Interstate shipment of intoxicating liquor 418-419 
 
 Interstate shipment, — jurisdiction of cause of action 252 
 
 Liability for issuing B/L without receipt of goods 251 
 
 Obtaining B/L under false pretenses 628 
 
 Protest of draft 1133 
 
 Purchase of B/L drafts by national banks 877 
 
 Recovery by drawee of money paid on non-negotiable B, L draft 245 
 
 Rights of attaching creditor of shipper 246-249 
 
 Rights of payor of draft where goods not according to contract 256-260 
 
 Shipper's indorsement supplied by collecting bank 253 
 
 Uniform B/L Act relative to purchase and collection 255 
 
 BLANK SPACES 
 
 Check signed in blank -293-294 
 
 Payee blank unfilled puts bank on inquiry 890 
 
 Space filled in accordance with authority 960 
 
 Space for interest left on note 746 
 
 BONDS 
 
 Bank's liability on indemnity l)ond 886 
 
 Bank's right to require l)ond for lost paper 824-826 
 
 Bond to protect against payment upon unauthorized indorsement 181 
 
 Duplicates for lost government bonds 819 
 
 Fidelity bonds 633-634 
 
 President of national bank as bond broker 193 
 
 BRANCH BANKS 
 
 Presentment and payment of checks 2'U-263 
 
 Presentment and payment of note 2**'* 
 
 Right to estal)lish branches 265 
 
 V
 
 BV-LAWS 
 
 Opinion Numbers 
 
 Bj'-law providing for secret stock lien 230 
 
 By-lHW re(|uirinn surety company bond 822 
 
 Disclaimer of liability iii)on loss of passbook 1045 
 
 Failure to adopt by-laws does not invalidate acts of corporation 431 
 
 Lost paper, requiring bond for » 816 
 
 CASHIER 
 
 Cashier buying his own note for bank 961 
 
 Cashier has no authority to bind bank in guaranty agreement 14, 180 
 
 Cashier of national bank need not be director 197 
 
 Cashier's checks 130, 570-571, 809, 824, 1236, 1238 
 
 Liability of bank for unauthorized act 195-196 
 
 Mortgage to national bank in name of cashier 856 
 
 Power to borrow money for use of bank 207 
 
 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 
 
 Attachment of funds represented by certificate 124-127 
 
 Bank's obligation to know payee's signature 280 
 
 Demand and time certificates distinguished 266-268 
 
 Forgerj' of payee's indorsement 280, 512, 515, 563 
 
 Holder protected by guaranty fund 480 
 
 Indorsement "all prior indorsements guaranteed" 724 
 
 Indorsement by alternative paj-ee 670 
 
 Rights of innocent purchaser 273-274 
 
 Insanity of payee 275 
 
 Issued in two names 502 
 
 Loan by national bank on security of its certificates 882 
 
 Lost certificate of deposit 281, 806, 825 
 
 Maturity 267, 278 
 
 Negotiability * 276-277 
 
 Passbook and negotiable certificate distinguished 141 
 
 Payable "in current funds" 271-272 
 
 Payable to minor 850 
 
 Presentment after death of payee 269-270 
 
 Statute of hmitations 278-279 
 
 Transfer without indorsement 281 
 
 Withholding payment of time certificate 282 
 
 CASHIER'S AND CERTIFIED CHECKS 
 
 Cashier's checks 130, 570-571, 809, 824, 1236, 1238 
 
 Certified checkholder not a preferred creditor 208 
 
 Postdated certified checks 12-14 
 
 Stopping payment of cashier's and certified checks 1236-1241 
 
 CHATTEL MORTGAGES 
 Chattel mortgages 857-863 
 
 CHECKS— PAYMENT OF 
 
 Ambiguous and incomplete checks 2S3-2S5 
 
 Bad checks, criminal liability for issuing 621-627 
 
 Bearer check without indorsement 2S9-292 
 
 Bearer checks, instruments purporting to be 286-2SS 
 
 Blank form of another bank used 82-84 
 
 vi
 
 CHECKS— PAYMENT OF— Continued 
 
 Opinion Numbers 
 
 Cashier's checks 130, 570-571, 809, 824, 1236, 1238 
 
 Certified checks, post dated 12-14 
 
 Certified checks, stopping payment of 1237-1241 
 
 Check as an assignment 450-461 
 
 Check drawn on another department of same bank 297 
 
 Check without funds 621-627 
 
 Checks for less than one dollar 333 
 
 Checks signed in blank 293-294 
 
 Checks with suspicious appearance S46 
 
 Conditional deposit of check 475 
 
 Conditional payment by check 1050-1051 
 
 Conversion of check by bank 295 
 
 Counter check, receipt as substitute for 296 
 
 Crediting depositor's account with checks on same bank operates as payment 297-298 
 
 Draft drawn on particular fund 323 
 
 Drawer of check a fugitive from justice 302 
 
 Drawer's liability on unpaid check 303 
 
 Duty of care of check book 304 
 
 Exchange charge, payment of 305-306 
 
 "For full payment of account" 307-311 
 
 Gambling debt, given for 313-314 
 
 Holder in due course. See Holder in Due Course. 
 
 Holiday, payment on G5<Mi63 
 
 "In exchange" effect on negotiabihty of provision 315-316 
 
 Instrument payable at future date 312 
 
 LfOSt or stolen checks. See Lost and Stolen Paper 798-828 
 
 Memorandum on check, effect of 317 
 
 More than balance, checks for 318-322 
 
 Negotiability, provisions affecting 324 
 
 "Not payable through express company " 325-327 
 
 Official check for private use, payment unsafe 32S-332 
 
 Partnership checks 334 
 
 Payable in one state and negotiated in another 335-336 
 
 Paj'able to A "for account of B " 337 
 
 Payable to drawee and presented by third person 338 
 
 Payable to two payees 708 
 
 Payroll check, form to protect against loss 339 
 
 Point of time when check received through mail is paid 300-301 
 
 Postdated checks .-^ 1083-1096 
 
 Preparing check, duty of care 341-344 
 
 Railway pay checks 591 , 595 
 
 Refusal to pay duly presented check 345 
 
 Relation of bank ujxjn deposit of check 299 
 
 Remittance stamp 347 
 
 Return of vouchers without receipt unsafe 359 
 
 Revocation of check by bankruptcy 216 
 
 Revocation of check by death 449—461 
 
 Revocation of death by insanity or incompetency 846-847 
 
 Right to pos.session of unused certified check 340 
 
 Rule of 24 hours acceptance not ai)plirablc to checks 43—46 
 
 Signatures 348-351 
 
 Special deposit, drawn against 393 
 
 Stale checks 352 
 
 Stamping check " PAID" 353-354 
 
 Stamping check "PAYMENT STOPPED" 1259-1201 
 
 Stopping paj-ment 1231-1289 
 
 Stranger payee 355 
 
 Strangers, checks cashed for 557-560 
 
 Traveler's checks 608-609
 
 CHECKS— PAYMENT OF— Coiitiiiuod 
 
 Opinion Numbers 
 
 Undated chocks 356-358 
 
 " Willi exchange, " effect of provision 3(30-362 
 
 Words and figures differ 303-366 
 
 CLEARING HOUSE 
 
 Check drawn on A "payable if desired at B" prohibited . . 891 
 
 Presentation of checks for more than balance 318-319, 322 
 
 COLLECTION 
 
 Bill of lading draft 367-369 
 
 Checks lost in the mail 798-799 
 
 Circuitous routing 370-372 
 
 Correspondent, selection of 373-375 
 
 Crediting depositor's account with checks on same l)ank operates as payment 297-298 
 
 Default of correspondent, liability for 376-383 
 
 Disclaimer of liability for negligence 384-385 
 
 Drawee only bank in place 385, 406, 409 
 
 Duty of collecting bank 386-390 
 
 Duty of collecting bank where proceeds under garnishment 136 
 
 Duty to trace unacknowledged items 426-427 
 
 Express company as collecting agent 391-392 
 
 Following instructions , 393-397 
 
 Forwarding paper direct to drawee 398-409 
 
 Insolvency of collecting bank 410-415 
 
 Interstate shipment of liquor 418-419 
 
 Items received by insolvent banker 420 
 
 Liability for not turning over proceeds 423 
 
 Lien on paper fonvarded 421—422 
 
 Payment of exchange charge 305-306 
 
 Postdated checks 10S3, 1091 
 
 Preferred claim against insolvent collecting bank 416-417 
 
 Proceeds paid in advance of collection, recover}' of 424 
 
 Protest, duty of collecting bank to lllS-1119, 1137-1139, 1145 
 
 Set off of proceeds against bankrupt's indebtedness 1177 
 
 Specific deposit, charging items against 393 
 
 Subsequent deposit, charging note against 425 
 
 Substituted presentment of lost check collecting bank's duty of 798, 817-818 
 
 Title of bank to paper deposited 299, 421, 428 
 
 Uncollected funds, payment against 428-429 
 
 COMMON CARRIER 
 
 Bill of lading issued without taking up goods 251 
 
 Carrying mail as public agent 832 
 
 Delivery of package after banking hours 171 
 
 Indorsement by railroad agent of checks payable to company 676 
 
 Railway pay checks 591, 595 
 
 CONTRACTS 
 
 Acceptance of offer by mail 829 
 
 Disclaimer of liability for payment of stopped check 1242-1244 
 
 Disclaimer of liability of collecting bank's negligence 384-385 
 
 Check given for gambling debt 313-314 
 
 Contracts bj' persons under guardiansliip 844 
 
 Contract to pay commission on sale 1344 
 
 Married women as contracting parties 834-843 
 
 Validity of contract made on Sunday 652, 657-658 
 
 viii
 
 CORPORATIONS 
 See Bank Stock and Stockholder 
 
 Opinion Numbers 
 
 Accommodation indorser's liability on corporation note 74, 76-77 
 
 Authority of officer to use corporate funds 32Q, 331 
 
 Books and records, inspection of 22(>-227 
 
 By-laws, failure to adopt 431 
 
 Corporation tax law 1293-1295 
 
 Criminal liability for issuing bad checks 622 
 
 Dividends, nature of unpaid 432 
 
 Dividend, right of purchaser of stock to 433 
 
 Double liability of bank stockholder 222-224 
 
 Indorsement by corporation on renewal of trade paper 994 
 
 Personal and corporate liability on note 434-438 
 
 Power to guaranty debt of another 874 
 
 Power to indorse for accommodation 430 
 
 Seal unnecessary on corporation note 996-997 
 
 Signature to corporation note 434-438 
 
 Transfer of stock on books 1339-1342 
 
 Ultra Vires Acts by banking corporations 177- ITS, 823, 874, 884 
 
 Usury pleaded as defense 786 
 
 Voting control by fraction of share 439 
 
 Voting power of stockholder 440 
 
 CURRENCY 
 See Legal Tender 
 
 Deposit of moneys belonging to Indiana 471 
 
 Duty to deface counterfeit coins 198 
 
 Legal tender qualities of money 788 
 
 Note payable in "legal tender" and "gold coin'' 789 
 
 Photographing United States notes 641 
 
 Taxation of Canadian currency 1290-1292 
 
 Theft of unsigned bank currency 828 
 
 CUSTOxM 
 
 Calculation of interest 747-748 
 
 Filing stop payment notices 1254 
 
 Lost checks and drafts charged back to customer's account 817 
 
 Mailing check direct to drawee 400, 409 
 
 Payee's indorsement as prerequisite of payment 714, 716 
 
 Payment of check after drawer's death 451 
 
 Presentment of check through clearing house 1 107 
 
 Protest by notary's clerk 1111 
 
 Stamping " collection " on notes 86 
 
 Stamping "Payment stopped " upon checks 1259-1261 
 
 DAMAGES 
 
 Bank's neglect to follow instructions in collecting paper 394 
 
 False statement of customer's financial condition 190-192 
 
 Refusal to transfer stock to bona fide purchaser 240 
 
 Violation of B/L instructions 250 
 
 Wrongful dishonor of check ... 506-51 1 
 
 DEATH AND DECEDENTS ESTATE 
 
 Agency revoked by death 47'J 
 
 Authority to renew notes of testator 447 
 
 Bank's right to credit decedent's account 442-443
 
 DKA'IH AM) I )I':(;i': DENT'S ESTATE— Continued 
 
 Opluion Numbers 
 
 Dpo(1 for annuity 444 
 
 Doiivcry of deed after death 445 
 
 Delivery of K'ft after (lonce's death 830 
 
 Disposal of funds of intestate hy bank 446 
 
 Heir's note for dcc^cdent's debt 448 
 
 Partnership account where one partner dies 334, 488 
 
 Payment of check after drawer's death 449-461 
 
 Payment of deposit to administrator 441 
 
 Power of attorney affected by death 462 
 
 Presentment of certificate of deposit after payee's death 209-270 
 
 Renunciation of interest by heir procured by fraud 643 
 
 Set olT atr;ainst indebtetlness of decedent 1197-1202 
 
 Survivorship where husband and wife [)erish in same disaster 668 
 
 Transfer of stock of decedent 463-464 
 
 DEED 
 
 Deed for annuity 444 
 
 Delivery after death ineffectual 445 
 
 DELIVERY 
 
 Delivery necessary to constitute valid pledge 1077 
 
 Delivery of deed after death ineffectual 445 
 
 Delivery of express package after banking hours 171 
 
 Gift not complete without delivery 667, 830, 1339 
 
 Postmaster's liability for misdelivery of registered package 833 
 
 Transfer of stock by deUvery 1339-1340 
 
 DEPOSITS 
 
 Assignment of deposit 465-467 
 
 Bank not obliged to receive deposits 469-470 
 
 Banlcs as depositaries 471 
 
 Check as an assignment 450-461 
 
 Crediting depositor's accoimt with check on same bank operates as payment of check 297-298 
 
 Deceased depositor's accounts 441-464 
 
 Deposit by one person crediting account of another 478-479 
 
 Deposit for safe-keeping 4.2 
 
 Deposit slip, nature of 4/ 3-476 
 
 Disclosm-e of customer's balance 4i 7 
 
 Gift by delivery of pass book 667 
 
 Giving cash instead of credit for deposited item 496 
 
 Guaranty fund of depositors 480 
 
 Husband and wife, deposits of 664-668 
 
 Joint deposit • 502 
 
 Legal tender, pajTnent in "^87 
 
 Made outside of bank 481-482 
 
 Military company, deposit of 483 
 
 Minors and incompetents, deposits of 846-855 
 
 Mistaken credit to account 494-495 
 
 Mistaken payment of deposit 484—485 
 
 National bank deposit in trust company 871 
 
 Notice of withdrawal of savings deposit in national bank 504 
 
 Partnership, deposit by 4S7-488 
 
 Payment on oral order 486 
 
 Postal savings 489-490 
 
 Public deposits = 491 
 
 Reserve against savings deposits 492 
 
 X
 
 DEPOSITS— Continued 
 
 Opinion Numbers 
 
 "Savings, " use of word ISS, S70 
 
 Set-off of deposits 1177-1230 
 
 Specific deposits 493 
 
 Subsequent deposits U3, 393 425, 1212 
 
 Time deposits 497 
 
 Trust funds 493 
 
 Two names, deposit in 502 
 
 Unclaimed deposits required to be published 503 
 
 Use of assumed name 408 
 
 DISHONOR 
 
 Drawer's liability on unpaid draft 505 
 
 Wrongful dishonor of checks 506-5 1 1 
 
 Presentment of instrument with indorsement lacking 1131-1134 
 
 DIVIDENDS 
 
 Dividend check on failed national bank 212 
 
 Nature of unpaid dividends 432 
 
 Pledgee's right to dividends of pledged stock 237-238 
 
 Right of purchaser of stock to dividends 433 
 
 DRAFTS 
 
 Draft drawn on particular fund 323 
 
 Drawer's liability for stopped draft 049 
 
 Drawer's hability on unpaid draft 505 
 
 Form of indorsement to restrict negotiability 725 
 
 Gift through the mail 830 
 
 Guaranty of draft by bank 874 
 
 Holder in due course of stolen draft 801, 803 
 
 Holder in due course of stopped draft 6 17, 049 
 
 Indorser discharged by payment ^099 
 
 Lost or stolen drafts 799-801, S03, 826, 827 
 
 Negligence in failing to notify of lost di-af t 799 
 
 Negotiation within reasonable time 801 
 
 Payable "through" or "in care of" bank 1103, 1104 
 
 Payable "with New York exchange" 1061 
 
 Payment by mistake 1053 
 
 Presentment of time draft for acceptance 3S8 
 
 Protest of draft 109S. 1133, 1145 
 
 Provisions affecting negotiability 2 1 1, 323. 909, 1 145 
 
 Rule of 24 hours for acceptance 43-40 
 
 EXCHANGE 
 
 Checks "not payable through express company" .■>25-327 
 
 Exchange charge 305-30«i 
 
 Instrument payable "in current funds" 271-272 
 
 Effect of words "in exchange" 315-316 
 
 Effect of words "with exchange " 300-302 
 
 EXECUTOR AND ADMINISTRATOR 
 
 Authority to renew notes of testator 1 17 
 
 Bank may demantl letters of administration 441 
 
 Decedent's stock claimcil by administrator 479, 1 197 
 
 Deposit of check by administrator l^efore lie has qualified 442 
 
 Transfer of stock to administrator 464 
 
 Voting 243
 
 FORGERY 
 
 Sec Altered and Raised Paper 
 
 Opinion Numbers 
 
 Altering name of drawee on forged check OIH 
 
 Bank bound to know depositor's sinnature 512-017 
 
 Certifindion of forged cliocks 18-20 
 
 CJieck hearing forged and genuine signatures 52.'J-o2i) 
 
 Checks cashed for strangers 5!j7-'A')() 
 
 Check (hiled on Sunday 020 
 
 Checks signed in fictitious name Oil 
 
 Criminal ofTense, possession of'forged instnuuent 642 
 
 Drawer's duty of examination and verification 527-528 
 
 Effect of delay in giving notice of forgery 575-570 
 
 Effect of waiver of identification 595 
 
 Estoppel to assert forgery of indorsement 613-614 
 
 Forged counter-signature to traveler's check or money order 608-610 
 
 Forged draft against lost letter of credit 619 
 
 Forged name of drawee 617 
 
 Forged order on savings deposit 529-533 
 
 Forged telegrai)h order to pay money 564-566 
 
 Forgery of signature by mark 561-563 
 
 Indorsement by person of same name 585-590 
 
 Indorsement by precise person intended 591-594 
 
 Indorser's warranty to subsequent purchaser 612 
 
 Liability of person identifying impersonator 615-616 
 
 Non-recovery of money paid on forged check 534-547 
 
 Non-recovery of money paid on forged indorsement 582-584 
 
 Obtaining money under false pretenses 638 
 
 Payment of forged check not chargeable to drawer 51S 
 
 Payment chargeable where drawer estopped 519-522 
 
 Protest of forged checks 1123-1 125 
 
 Recovery of money paid on forged bearer check 596-597 
 
 Recovery of money paid on forged check 548-556 
 
 Recovery of money paid on forged indorsement 567-569, 572-574 
 
 Recovery where indorsement guaranteed 577-581 
 
 Signature and indorsement both forged 598-604 
 
 Statute of limitations as apphed to forged indorsements 605-607 
 
 FRAUD' AND;^ CRIMES 
 
 Bad checks, criminal liabihty for issuing 621-627 
 
 Bill of lading obtained under false pretenses 628 
 
 Burglary policy of the American Bankers Association 629 
 
 Certification by officer of overdraft 35 
 
 Check signed in fictitious name with intent to defraud 611 
 
 Collection items fraudulently received by insolvent banker 420 
 
 Conspiracy to commit robbery 630 
 
 Conversion of notes by innkeeper 631 
 
 Delivery of goods without taking up warehouse receipt 632 
 
 Derogatory statements affecting banks 792-797 
 
 Duty to deface counterfeit coins 198 
 
 False statement that certificate of deposit is lost 281 
 
 Fidelity bonds 633-634 
 
 Firm checks issued through fraud of employee 635 
 
 Forgery of check dated on Sunday 620 
 
 Fraud in overdrawing letter of credit 1059 
 
 Interstate shipment of intoxicating liquor 418-419 
 
 Introducing swindler to bank 636 
 
 Obtaining money under false pretenses 637-639 
 
 Passing worthless state bank bill 640 
 
 Photographing United States notes ."/. . T 641 
 
 xii
 
 FRAUD AND CRIMES— Continued 
 
 Opinion Numbers 
 
 Possession of forged instrument with intent to defraud 642 
 
 Renunciation of interest by heir procured by fraud 643 
 
 Statement to procure credit 644 
 
 Theft of registered mail by railroad employee 832 
 
 GIFl'S 
 
 Gift of bank draft through the mail 830 
 
 Not complete without delivery 499, 667, 830, 1339 
 
 Of bank stock. 1339 
 
 GUARANTY 
 
 "All prior indorsements guaranteed " . . 71S-724 
 
 Cashier's guaranty of post dated check ISO 
 
 Defective indorsement 696-C98 
 
 Drawee's right to require guaranty of payee's indorsement 694-695 
 
 Guaranty fund of doiK)sitors 4S0 
 
 Guaranty of missing indorsement 669-685 
 
 Indorscr as guarantor 700 
 
 Power of bank to guarantee draft . . 177-17S 
 
 Release by extension of time . . 9(>4-9()6 
 
 Securities guaranteed by salesman . . 1076 
 
 Signature guaranteed 179, 517 
 
 Statute of limitations 961, 1003 
 
 HOLDER IN DUE COURSE 
 
 Certificate of deposit indorsed by minor 850 
 
 Certified check 22 
 
 Check given for gambling debt 313-314 
 
 Check payable to drawee and presented by third person 338 
 
 Check signed in blank 293-294 
 
 Effect of indorsement "without recourse" 740 
 
 Instrument indorsed in blank and stolen 806-81 1 
 
 Negotiable certificate of deposit 273-274 
 
 Paper indorsed for accommodation by corporation 430 
 
 Raised checks 99-100 
 
 Rediscounted note • ■ t>45 
 
 Stolen paper . . SOl-805 
 
 Stopped check . • t>4«)-650 
 
 Stopped draft (J-i7, 649 
 
 HOLIDAYS, SATURDAY AND SUNDAY 
 
 Forgery of check dated Sunday <''20 
 
 Instrument executed on holiday l>51-653 
 
 Instrument maturing on Saturday 654-656 
 
 Notes executed and delivered on Sunday 657-058 
 
 Payment of check on holiday • 659-<}63 
 
 HUSBAND AND WIFE 
 
 See also Married Women 
 
 Attachment of wife's account by husband's creditor 127 
 
 Authority to draw checks 664-666 
 
 Husband's account in name of wife 667 
 
 Husband's account in trust for wife •'*'8 
 
 Joinder of wife in chattel mortgage ^8
 
 INDORSER— INDORSEMENT 
 
 Opinion Xuiubere 
 
 Ahsoncc of payee's indnrsomcnt 6t)9 
 
 Acc()imn(Hl:itii)ii iiulorsomoiit 66-77 
 
 Altonition of dnift jiftcr indorsement 94 
 
 Alternative payee, indorsement \>y 670 
 
 Authority of a^ent to indorse 671-678 
 
 Bearer elieeks do not legally require indorsement 679-680 
 
 Blank indorsement followed hy sjjeeial indorsement 681-683 
 
 Charge indorscr's account, right to 684 
 
 " Credit account of witliin named payee " 685-<)86 
 
 Extension of time, release of indorser by 1005 
 
 " For identification only " 687 
 
 Form and language of indorsement 688-693 
 
 Guaranty of defect ive indorsement 696-698 
 
 Guaranty, drawee's right to require 694-695 
 
 Indorsement before payee 703-704 
 
 Indorsement by mark 705-707 
 
 Indorsement by minor 850 
 
 Indorsement of past due note 1 105 
 
 Indorser discharged by payment 699 
 
 Indorser as guarantor 700 
 
 Indorser's liability preserved by demand and notice 701-702 
 
 Partnership, indorsement by 708 
 
 "Pay any bank or banker " 709-710 
 
 Precise person intended, indorsement by 711-712 
 
 Prerequisite of payment, indorsement as 713-717 
 
 " Prior indorsements guaranteed " 718-724 
 
 Restrictive indorsement 725-730 
 
 Rubber stamp 731-736 
 
 Same name as payee, indorsement by person of 743-744 
 
 Statute of Limitations apjjlied to forged indorsement 605-607 
 
 Transfer without indorsement 281 
 
 Warrant genuineness of signature, indorsement does not 737 
 
 "Without recourse" 734-742 
 
 INTEREST AND USURY 
 
 Attorney's fee as cover for usury 745 
 
 Blank space for interest left in note 746 
 
 Calculation of interest 747-748 
 
 Collection annually and at maturity 749-752 
 
 Compound interest 753-755 
 
 Discount greater than legal rate 756-757 
 
 Legal rate collectible after maturity 758-759 
 
 Legal rate on loans 760-761 
 
 Maker's readiness to pay note stops interest 1019-1020 
 
 Maximum legal rate, discount at .' 762-766 
 
 Mmimum charge of one dollar for small loans 783 
 
 Negotiability affected by interest clause 767-769 
 
 Parol evidence to prove usury 770 
 
 Partial paj'ment applied to reduce interest 771 
 
 Payment of interest in advance 772-773 
 
 Pajinent of principal before maturity 774-776 
 
 Penalty for usury 777-778 
 
 Rate on loans outside of state 779-782 
 
 Slight excess interest 784 
 
 Usury pleaded as defense 785-786 
 
 INTOXICATING LIQUOR 
 
 Interstate shipment 418—419 
 
 xiv
 
 LEGAL TENDER 
 
 Opinion Numbers 
 
 Deposit in gold coin payable in legal tender 787 
 
 Legal tender qualities of money 788 
 
 Legal tender substitute for gold coin 789-790 
 
 Standard silver dollars 791 
 
 LETTERS OF CREDIT 
 
 Duplicate for lost letter 813 
 
 Forgery against lost letter 812 
 
 Payment of overdrawn letter 1058-1059 
 
 LIBEL AND SLANDER 
 
 Derogatory statements affecting l^anks 792-797 
 
 Publication of names of bank debtors in "delinquent book" 191 
 
 Slander of bank depositor 190 
 
 LIENS 
 
 Collecting bank's lien on paper forwarded 421-422 
 
 Judgment lien against bankrupt's estate 214 
 
 Lien of national bank for stockholder's indebtedness 230-232, 236 
 
 Lien of state bank for stockholder's indebtedness 228-229, 233-235 
 
 Lien on dividends of pledged stock 237-238 
 
 Lien on security pledged for specific debt 1063-1066 
 
 Mechanic's lien affected by trade acceptance 1330 
 
 Negotiability of vendor's lien note 903 
 
 Priority between mortgage and mechanic's lien 86S 
 
 LOAN AND DISCOUNT 
 
 Bank as agent to procure loan li>7 
 
 Bank as borrower on personal note of executive 168 
 
 Legal rate, discount greater than 756-757 
 
 Legal rate of interest on loans 700-761 
 
 Limit of loan by national bank S75-S81 
 
 Loan to bank official restricted 183 
 
 Maximum legal rate, discount at 762-766 
 
 One dollar minimum charge for small loans 783 
 
 Power of national bank to loan on mortgage 884 
 
 Rate of interest on loans outside of state 779-782 
 
 Rebate of interest on prepaid loan 771 
 
 LOST AND STOLEN PAPER 
 
 Check indorsed in blank followed by special indorsement 682 
 
 Check signed in blank and stolen 800 
 
 Checks, duplicate for S17-S18 
 
 Checks lost in mail 798-799 
 
 Duplicate for stolen draft . . 803, 826 
 
 " Duphcate unpaid" on draft, effect of S27 
 
 Duty of care of check book 304 
 
 False statement that certificate of deposit is lost 281 
 
 Forged countersignature of lost traveler's check 609 
 
 Forged draft against lost letter of credit 619, 812 
 
 Government bonds, duplicates for 819 
 
 Holder in due course of stolen paper 801-805 
 
 Indemnity bond for issue of duplicate 824-826 
 
 Instrument indorsed in blank and stolen . . 806-811 
 
 Letter of credit 812-813 
 
 Passbook 814-816
 
 LOriT AND STOLEN TAPEIl— Continued 
 
 Opinion NumbtTH 
 
 Stock corf ificafo, dviplicatc for lost 820-823 
 
 Substituted |)rcs(Mitiiicnt wlicu check is lost 798, 817-818 
 
 Unackuowlcdficd items, duty to trace 420-427 
 
 Unsigned bunk currency stolen and circulat<'tl 828 
 
 MAIL 
 
 Accejitance of ofTer by nuiil 829 
 
 Bank's negligence in mailing draft to wrong person 586, 594 
 
 Checks and drafts lost in the mail 798-799 
 
 Gift of bank draft through the mail 830 
 
 Loss of registered mail 831-833 
 
 Point of time when check received through mail is paid 300-301 
 
 MARRIED WOMEN 
 See also Husband and Wife 
 
 Account opened vmder maiilen name 468 
 
 As surety and accommodation party 834-843 
 
 MATURITY 
 
 Bank's right to charge to customer's account at maturity of note 1179 
 
 Certificate of deposit, maturity of 266-268, 278 
 
 Collection of interest at maturity 749-752 
 
 Days of grace abolished 962 
 
 Instrument maturing on Saturday 654-657 
 
 Legal rate of interest collectible after maturity 758-759 
 
 Maturity of notes 986-989 
 
 Negotiable instruments in Illinois, maturity of 660 
 
 Notes payable at bank equivalent to order to pay at maturity 1007-1010 
 
 Notes payable at bank presented after maturity 1008, 1336 
 
 Overdue trade acceptance presented after maturity 1335-1336 
 
 Payment of principal before maturity not usurious 774-776 
 
 Protest after maturity 1139 
 
 MINORS AND INCOMPETENTS 
 
 Contracts of persons under guardianship 844 
 
 Liability of minor as stockholder 845 
 
 Payment by bank to incompetent depositor unsafe 846-847 
 
 Payment of check to infant agent 848 
 
 Withdrawal of deposit by minor 849-850 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS PERTAINING TO THE FORM AND LANGUAGE OF INSTRUMENTS 
 
 Bond to protect against payment upon unauthorized indorsement 181 
 
 Certificate of deposit subject to attachment 125 
 
 Certification "good if presented within five days " 38 
 
 Certification stamp including amount disadvantageous 49 
 
 Check payable " to order of payee shown on back" 324 
 
 Clauses inserted in trade acceptances 1328, 1332-1333 
 
 Deed for annuity 444 
 
 Disclaimer of liability for negligence of collecting bank 3S4-3S5 
 
 Disclaimer of liability for payment of stopped check 1242-1244 
 
 Excess collateral, appUcation to " any other claims" 1064 
 
 Form and language of indorsement ." 688-693 
 
 Form authorizing mailing paper direct to drawee 385 
 
 Form of note to make indorsers liable as sureties 700 
 
 Guaranty by indorsers of check-drawer's signature 513 
 
 xvi
 
 MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS PERTAINING TO THE FORM AND LANGUAGE OF INSTRUMENTS 
 
 Continued 
 
 Opiuiiin Numbers 
 
 Instrument drawn on check form paj-able at future date 312 
 
 Letter of credit to safeguard against overdraft 1059 
 
 Negotiability of draft, form to restrict 725 
 
 Note retaining lien 903 
 
 Note securing warehouse collateral 1079 
 
 Notice of dishonor 1030 
 
 Payroll checks to protect against loss 339 
 
 Pledge whereby pledgor retains possession 1077 
 
 Receipt as substitute for counter check 296 
 
 Set off of unmatured note against insolvent borrower 1230 
 
 Two accounts, check where depositor has 1220 
 
 MISTAKE 
 
 Certificate of deposit issued for erroneous amount 273 
 
 Legacy paid by mistake 1055 
 
 Mistaken credit to account 494—495 
 
 Money paid without consideration recoverable 631, 1052, 1057 
 
 Payment of check without funds 1054 
 
 Payment of deposit by mistake 4S4-4S5 
 
 Payment of draft by mistake 1053 
 
 Revocation of mistaken certification of stopped check 4S 
 
 MORTGAGES 
 
 Chattel mortgages 857-863 
 
 Foreclosure 864 
 
 Mortgage in name of cashier 856 
 
 Mortgage indebtedness payable in gold coin 790 
 
 Mortgage notes S65-S67 
 
 Power of national bank to loan on mortgage 884 
 
 Priority between mortgage and nieclianic's lien 868 
 
 Provision in mortgage governs interest clause in note 752 
 
 Wrong description in mortgage S09 
 
 NAMES 
 
 Assumed name, opening account under 4u'> 
 
 Deposit in two names 502 
 
 Garnishment notice with incorrect name 131-132 
 
 Indorsement by person of same name as payee 585-590 
 
 Mortgage given to bank in name of cashier 856 
 
 " Mrs." not part of name 689 
 
 Right to change name 1345 
 
 NATIONAL BANKS 
 
 Advertising for "savings" account S70 
 
 Branch banks not permitted 2''>5 
 
 Cashier need not be director 197 
 
 Deposits with trust company permitted 871 
 
 DouI>le liability of stockholder 223-224, 1200 
 
 Examination by revenue officer 872 
 
 Federal jurisdiction 873 
 
 Guaranty of draft in which it has no beneficial interest 874 
 
 Increase of national bank stock 225 
 
 Lien for indebtedness of stockholder 230-232, 236 
 
 Limit of loan by national bank 875-88 1 
 
 Loan on certificates of deposit 882 
 
 xvii
 
 NATIONAL BANKS— Continued 
 
 Opinion NumberR 
 
 Loan on shares of stock proliilutcd 882 
 
 Miniinuiii charge on small loans 783 
 
 National l)ank as surety 885-886 
 
 Power to act as broker 193 
 
 Power to donate services of clerk 883 
 
 Power to loan on mortgage 884 
 
 Publication of unclaimed deposits -WS 
 
 Kate of interest on loans outside of state 779 
 
 State taxation 1321-1325 
 
 Transfer of stock 1339-1342 
 
 Trust powers 887 
 
 Usurious discount and penalty 745, 750, 777 
 
 NEGLIGENCE 
 
 Attorney's delay in bringing suit 1343 
 
 Circuitous method of presentment of check not neghgent 370-372 
 
 Collecting bank forwarding paper direct to drawee 398-409 
 
 Collecting bank's violation of instructions 394-396 
 
 Disclaimer of liability for maiUng check direct to drawee 384-385 
 
 Disclaimer of liability for mistaken payment of stopped checks 1242-1244 
 
 Duty of care of check book 304 
 
 Duty of care in preparing check 341-344 
 
 Failure to present for acceptance 388 
 
 Failure to trace unacknowledged items 426-427 
 
 Liability for loss of registered mail 831-833 
 
 Liability of telegraph company for forged telegrams 564-566 
 
 Mailing check to wrong person 588, 590, 594 
 
 Safe depositary responsible for negligence 472 
 
 NEGOTIABILITY 
 
 Acceptance indorsed on back of bill 888 
 
 Certainty as to payee 889-S90 
 
 Certainty of place of payment 891 
 
 Certainty of time of payment ■ • • 892-S93 
 
 Certificate of deposit 276-277 
 
 Certificate of stock 808, 894-S95 
 
 Check paj'able to payee only 83, 287 
 
 Certificate of deposit payable "in current funds" 271-272 
 
 Clause confessing judgment 978-9S4 
 
 Costs of collection and attorney's fees 151-163 
 
 Extension clause 896-900 
 
 " In exchange" instrument payable 901 
 
 Instrument must be negotiable to justify protest 1140-1146 
 
 Instrument stamped by protect ograph 343 
 
 "Not payable through express company," effect of provision 325-327 
 
 Note reciting executory consideration 902 
 
 Note retaining lien upon property 903 
 
 Note secured by mortgage 865, 867 
 
 Note secured by warehouse collateral 1079 
 
 Passbook of savings bank non-negotiable. . . .' 814, 1038-1040 
 
 Provisions destroying negotiability 287, 892, 1145 
 
 Provisions regulating payment of interest 767-769 
 
 Statement of "particular fund" 323, 1140 
 
 Trade acceptance 1331-1333 
 
 Undated checks 356-358 
 
 Use of seal • 995-993 
 
 Waiver of protest and exemptions, effect of 904 
 
 xviii
 
 NEGOTIABILITY— Continued 
 
 Opinion Numbers 
 
 Warehouse receipt 905 
 
 Warrant drawn for municipal debt 906 
 
 Words affecting negotiability 907-909 
 
 PROVISIONS IN THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS LAW REFERRED 
 TO IN THE FOLLOWING TOPICS 
 
 Accommodation indorser's liability 71 
 
 Attorney's fee stipulation 151-155 
 
 Blank space filled in "strictly in accordance with authority given" 285, 960 
 
 Certification must be in writing 15 
 
 Check is not an assignment 454-455 
 
 Check signed in blank and filled in 294 
 
 Circuitous routing of checks 370 
 
 Computation of time 987 
 
 Days of grace abolished 4r), 962 
 
 Drawee's liability upon stop payment 1255 
 
 Form of notice of dishonor 1030 
 
 Indorsement before payee "03 
 
 Indorsement in blank followed by special indorsement 681 
 
 Indorser's liability ns affected by agreement 73 
 
 Negotiation of check within reasonable time 801 
 
 Notes paj^able at bank 1007-1018 
 
 Presentment on Saturday 654-<')55 
 
 Protest must be under hand and seal of notary 1111 
 
 Rule allowing drawee 24 hours to accept 43 
 
 Statement of "particular fund" in instrument 323, 1140 
 
 Surety maker not discharged by extension of time 963, 967-968 
 
 Undated checks 357-358 
 
 Waiver of protest • • • ■ 1 1"3 
 
 Words and figures differ 3»)3 
 
 NOTARIES 
 
 Acknowledgment by party in interest 910 
 
 Acknowledgment over telephone 911-912 
 
 Certificate of protest 1111-1112 
 
 Competency of bank officers, directors, stockholders and employees 91 !~957 
 
 Employee of member of Federal Reserve Bank as notary ' 1'>1 
 
 Form of acknowledgment •*'*'^ 
 
 Notary's fee in Alabama 913 
 
 Protest by Justice of the Peace ^ ' '^ 
 
 Protest by notary's clerk 1 ' ' 1 
 
 Relationship to mortgagee does not disqualify 9^ 
 
 NOTES 
 
 Accommodation maker not released by extension of time • 1006 
 
 Accommodation notes 100<>. 1022 
 
 Alteration of note •♦<'' ^ \-^ 
 
 Attorney's foe notes 149- Hm 
 
 Bank as holder of director's note 1^ 
 
 Blank space filled " in accordance with authority " 9t>0 
 
 Blank space for interest '"*" 
 
 Cashier buying his own note for bank ^" 
 
 Collateral notes, enforcement of 1069-10/ 1 
 
 Corporation note, accommodation indorser's liability 76-77 
 
 Days of grace abolished ^"'^ 
 
 Demand notes 1188-1190 
 
 xix
 
 NOTt:;^ Continued 
 
 Opinion Numbers 
 
 Dishonor of nolo payiil)!^ in inHtalnicnU 102H-1029 
 
 Knforceinont by holder 909-972 
 
 Extension of time of payment 903-908 
 
 Holder in due course of redi.scounted note ^^5 
 
 Inipos!sil)le date, note with 974 
 
 Indorser released by extension of time 1005 
 
 Joint and several notes 975-977 
 
 Judf^ment notes 978-984 
 
 Lopal tender, payable in 789-790 
 
 Liai)iiity of surety 985 
 
 Maturity of notes 9S0-989 
 
 Mortgage notes 865-807 
 
 Negotial)ility of notes 889-900 
 
 Note collected by agent without authority 990 
 
 Note governed by law of place where payable 973 
 
 Renewals 991-994 
 
 S.-al, use of 995-998 
 
 Signature on corporation note 434-^38 
 
 Statute of limitations on demand note 999-1003 
 
 Warehouse collateral, secured by 1079 
 
 ''With exchange", containing words 1004 
 
 NOTES PAYABLE AT BANK 
 
 Equivalent to order to paj' at maturity 1007-1010 
 
 Express instructions to pay 1011-1015 
 
 Liability of maker when note not presented 1019-1020 
 
 Maker's readiness to pay stops interest 1019-1020 
 
 Negotiable Instruments Law, application of 1016-1018 
 
 Partial payment where funds insufficient 1210 
 
 Payment after maturity 1021 
 
 Stopping payment 1249-1252 
 
 Subsequent deposit cannot be applied 425, 1210 
 
 NOTICE OF DISHONOR 
 
 Accommodation indorser entitled to notice 1022-1024 
 
 Duty to notify 1025-1027 
 
 Necessary to hold indorser 1 149 
 
 Notice upon default of instalment 1028-1029 
 
 Not required where indorser is accommodated party 1109 
 
 Provisions in Negotiable Instruments Law 1030 
 
 Should be given within reasonable time 1031 
 
 Sufficiency of notice 1031 
 
 Surety-maker not entitled to notice 1032-1033 
 
 Waiver 1034-1036 
 
 Waiver of protest includes demand and notice 1170-1176 
 
 OVERDRAFT 
 
 By director 203 
 
 Certification of overdraft illegal 35 
 
 Pa\nncnt and credit of overdraft as deposit 1347-1350 
 
 Payment of overdrawn letter of credit 1058-1059 
 
 Payment from subsequent deposit 393 
 
 Payment to bona-fide checkholder 1054 
 
 Right to charge back overdraft 297 
 
 Recourse by bank which pays overdraft 1347-1350 
 
 WTiere depositor has two accounts 1220-1223 
 
 XX
 
 PARTNERSHIP 
 
 Opinion Numbers 
 
 Bank stock issued in name of firm 239 
 
 Deposit by partnership 487-488 
 
 Partnership indorsement 708 
 
 Payment of partnership checks to survivor in case of death 334 
 
 Set off against individual account of partner 1217-1219 
 
 PASSBOOKS 
 
 Assignment of passbook 1037-1040 
 
 Credit of overdraft irrevocable 1347-1350 
 
 Delivery necessary to complete gift of deposit G07 
 
 Duty of examination by depositor 49G, 1041 
 
 Garnishee bank requires return of passbook 141 
 
 Lost passbook 814-81G 
 
 Nature of passbook 1042 
 
 Presentation of savings passbook 1043 
 
 Provision in passbook to protect bank against crediting overdraft 1347-1350 
 
 Rules in savings passbook 1044-1045 
 
 PAYMENT 
 
 Acceptance of check "for full payment of account" 307-311 
 
 After banking hours 1 
 
 After notice of assignment 1040-1047 
 
 Application of payment 1048-1049 
 
 Bank's refusal to pay duly presented check 345 
 
 Conditional payment by check 1050-1051 
 
 Crediting depositor's account with checks on same bank operates as payment 297-298 
 
 Exchange charge 305-30G 
 
 Extension of time of payment 963-908, 991-991 
 
 "In current funds" 271-272 
 
 Indorsement of check as prerequisite of payment 713-717 
 
 "In exchange" 31.>-316 
 
 Interest paid in advance 772-773 
 
 Legal tender 787-791 
 
 Minors and incompetents, payment to S4G-8.')5 
 
 Mistake, pajnnent by 1052-1057 
 
 Note payable in instalments 102S-1029 
 
 Official check for private use, payment unsafe 32S-332 
 
 Overdraft paid or credited as a deposit 1347-13r»0 
 
 Overdrawn letter of credit 105S-1059 
 
 Order in which checks for more than balance should be paid 318-322 
 
 "Paid" stamp on check 35;i-354 
 
 Partial payment lOtW) 
 
 Payment of check after drawer's death 449-4(il 
 
 Payment of check on holiday G59-()03 
 
 Payment of checks with suspicious appearance 340 
 
 PajTnent of note payable at bank after maturity 133G 
 
 Payment of note payable at bank at maturity 1007-1010 
 
 Payment of principal before maturity 774-770 
 
 Payment on rubber stamp indorsement unsafe 735 
 
 Payment upon indorsement of precise person intended 711-712 
 
 Payment upon indorsement of person of same name as payee 743-744 
 
 "With exchange" 1061 
 
 PLEDGE AND COLLATERAL 
 
 Accounts receivable as collateral 10G2 
 
 Application of surplus security pledged for specific debt 1063-1066 
 
 Bank's power to pledge its assets 185 
 
 Bond for title as security 1067
 
 I'LEDGE AND COLLATERAL— Continued 
 
 opinion Numbers 
 
 Corporate stork plodKccl as collateral 1068 
 
 Enforcement of collateral notes 1060-1071 
 
 Lib(>rty bonds as (collateral 1072 
 
 Lien on dividends of jjled^ed stock 237-238 
 
 Life insurance j)oliey a-ssi^ned as collateral 1073 
 
 Passbook assigned as collateral 1037-1040 
 
 Power of attorney to sell collateral 1074 
 
 Sale of collateral on outlawed note 1075 
 
 Securities guaranteed l)y salesman 1076 
 
 Warehouse receipt, validity as pledge 1078-1081 
 
 War Savings certificates as collateral 1082 
 
 What constitutes valid pledge 1077 
 
 POSTDATED CHECKS 
 
 Certified checks 12-14 
 
 Duty of collecting bank 1083 
 
 Payment 1084r-1089 
 
 Protest 1090-1095 
 
 Set of! 1096 
 
 POWER OF ATTORNEY 
 
 Power of attorney affected by death 462 
 
 Power of attorney to sign checks 351 
 
 PRESENTMENT 
 See Collection 
 
 At branch banks 261-264 
 
 Circuitous routing of checks 370-372 
 
 Duty of collecting bank 386-390 
 
 Forwarding paper direct to drawee 398-409 
 
 Necessity of presentment 701-702 
 
 Over telephone 109S-1099 
 
 Place of presentment 1100-1104 
 
 Presentment for acceptance 388, 1083 
 
 Presentment of check a second time 1154-1156 
 
 Reasonable time for presentment 1105-1108 
 
 Rule to allow drawee 24 hours for acceptance 43-46 
 
 Simultaneous presentment of checks for more than balance 318-322 
 
 Substituted presentment when check is lost 798, 817-818 
 
 When presentment excused 1109 
 
 PROTEST 
 See Notice of Dishonor 
 
 Altered check 1110 
 
 Certificate of protest 1111-1112 
 
 Checks payable in one state and negotiated in another 1113 
 
 Demand over telephone does not justify protest 109S-1099 
 
 Drawee's duty of protest 1115-1117 
 
 Duty of collecting bank 1118-1119 
 
 Fees 1120-1121 
 
 For better security 1122 
 
 Forged checks 1123-1125 
 
 Formal protest 1126-1128 
 
 xxii
 
 PROTEST— Continued 
 
 Opinion Nambers 
 
 Indorsement of check incorrect 1129-1130 
 
 Indorsement on instrument lacking 1131-1134 
 
 Inland and foreign bills of exchange distinguished 1135-1136 
 
 Instructions to protest 1137-1139 
 
 Instrimient must be negotiable 1 140-1 146 
 
 Not abolished in any state 1 147 
 
 Notice of protest 1025-1027 
 
 Payment of protested check 1114 
 
 Permissible but not compulsory 1 148-1 149 
 
 Persons authorized to make protest 1150-1151 
 
 Place of protest 1152-1153 
 
 Postdated checks 1090-1095 
 
 Second protest of check 1154-1 15G 
 
 Signature on instrument lacking 1 157 
 
 Stopped check 1 158-1 159 
 
 Surety-maker of note not entitled to protest 967 
 
 Time of protest 1 160-1 169 
 
 Waiver 1 170-1 176 
 
 SAVINGS DEPOSITS 
 
 Account of husband in trust for wife 068 
 
 Attachment and garnishment of savings deposits 141-142, 144-145 
 
 Notice of withdrawal 282 
 
 PajTiient on production of passbook 1043 
 
 Rules in saving passbook 1044-1045 
 
 Savings account as time deposit 497 
 
 Savings deposit in national bank 504 
 
 Savings deposits not exempted from taxation 1314 
 
 Set off where depositor has savings and chocking accounts 1220-1221, 1223 
 
 l^se of word "savings" ISS, S70 
 
 SET OFF 
 
 Collection proceeds set off against bankrupt .-. . . 1 177 
 
 Consent of depositor required in Louisiana 1 178 
 
 Consent of depositor unnecessary 1179-1 181 
 
 County warrant set off against deposit of county 1 182 
 
 Debt protected by collateral 1 183-1 185 
 
 Debt must be contracted in good faith 1 186 
 
 Debt of presenting checkholdcr 1 187 
 
 Demand note 118.8-1190 
 
 Deposits impressed with trust character 1 I'M 
 
 Deposit received after maturity of note 1 1'>1 
 
 Deposits made in view of insolvency 1 192-1 193 
 
 Depositor's right to set off against insolvent bank 1206-1209 
 
 Indebtedness of decedent, set off against 1 197-1202 
 
 Indorser's account, set off against 120;j-1205 
 
 Maker's account charged in interest of indorser 1210-1213 
 
 Note set off against insolvent l>ank by indorser 1214-1216 
 
 Partnership debt set off against indivithml account 1217-1219 
 
 Postdated check 109*'. 
 
 Set off against city deposit 1 195 
 
 Set off by bank to defeat attachment 146-148 
 
 Set off of claim for interest 1 196 
 
 Stopped check, sot off after payment of 1265 
 
 Unmatured debt set off against l)ankrupt 1224-1230 
 
 Whore depositor has two accounts 1220-1223 
 
 xxiii
 
 SIGNATURES 
 
 Opinion Numbers 
 
 Agont signing for principal 605 
 
 Bank bound to know depositor's signature 512-617 
 
 Bank's obligation to know payee's signature on certificate of deposit 280 
 
 By mark and witness .' 202, 561-503 
 
 By power of attorney 351 
 
 Comparison of signatures 350 
 
 Corporation signature on note 434-438 
 
 Forgery of signature by mark 561-5G3 
 
 Guaranty of signature 179, 617 
 
 Hectograph signature valid 349 
 
 Joint and several notes 975-977 
 
 Indorsement by mark 705-707 
 
 Indorsement does not warrant genuineness 737 
 
 Missing signature 254, 1 157 
 
 Notary's certificate signed by clerk 1111 
 
 Partly genuine 348 
 
 Partnership signature 487-488 
 
 Surety-maker's signature after discount of note 985 
 
 Unsigned bank currency stolen and circulated 828 
 
 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 
 
 Begins to run from maturity of note 968 
 
 Certificate of deposit 278-279 
 
 Certified check 39-41 
 
 Checks 1106 
 
 Demand note ' 999-1003 
 
 Effect of payment of interest after maturity 74 
 
 Forged indorsements 605-607 
 
 Guaranty of payment •. 1003 
 
 Postponement by extension of time of payment 991 
 
 Sale of collateral security on outlawed note •. 1075 
 
 Statute of Limitations against indorser 74, 100 1 
 
 STOPPING PAYMENT 
 
 Accuracy of notice 1231-1232 
 
 Bank's liability for payment 1233-1235 
 
 Cashier's and certified checks 1236-1241 
 
 Disclaimer of liabiUty for payment of stopped check 1242-1244 
 
 Duty to obey instructions 1245-1248 
 
 Notes payable at bank 1249-1252 
 
 Notice holds good indefinitely 1253-1254 
 
 Oral notice 1255-1258 
 
 Practice of stamping "payment stopped" 1259-1261 
 
 Recovery by drawee 1262-1265 
 
 Rights of holder in due course 1266-1282 
 
 When drawer's right ceases 301 
 
 Where instrument an assignment 1283-1285 
 
 Where instrument not an assignment 1286-1289 
 
 SURETIES 
 
 Liability of surety 985 
 
 Married woman as surety 834-843 
 
 National bank as surety 885-886 
 
 Surety company bond 822 
 
 Surety-maker not entitled to protest 967 
 
 Surety not released by extension of time 963-968 
 
 xxiv
 
 TAXATION 
 
 Opinion Numbcra 
 
 Canadian bank notes and currency 1290-1292 
 
 Compulsory disclosure of customer's balance 173-17G 
 
 Corporation tax law 1293-1295 
 
 Deduction of government bonds 129G 
 
 Deduction of real estate . 1297-1300 
 
 Deduction of taxes , 1301-1303 
 
 Discrimination in assessment 1304-1305 
 
 Erroneous return 130G 
 
 Federal income tax law 1307 
 
 Occupation tax 1309-1310 
 
 Penalty of delayed return 1312-1313 
 
 Savings deposits not exempted 1314-1315 
 
 Secured Debts Tax Law of New York 1316 
 
 Stamp tax 1317-1320 
 
 State taxation of national banks 1321-1325 
 
 Tax for fraction of year 1308 
 
 Taxation of clioses in action 1311 
 
 Transfer tax of decedent 1320 
 
 Treasury notes subject to taxation 1327 
 
 TRADE ACCEPTANCE 
 
 Acceptance payable at bank in another locality 132S 
 
 Completing signature of drawer after acceptance 1329 
 
 Mechanic's lien rights, effect of 1330 
 
 Negotiability 1331-1333 
 
 Overdue trade acceptance payable at Invnk 1335-1336 
 
 Payment by acceptor's bank 1337 
 
 Seller's right of replevin 1338 
 
 Trade acceptance propaganda not in restraint of trade 1334 
 
 TRANSFER OF STOCK 
 
 Duplicates for lost stock certificates 820-823 
 
 Liability of transferor to assessment 220 
 
 Bank stock 240-241 
 
 Book transfers 1339-1342 
 
 Negotiability of certificate SOS, 823, 894-895 
 
 Right of bank as lienor to refuse transfer of stock 228-236 
 
 Stock of decedent 463-464 
 
 Transfer by delivery 1339-1340 
 
 Transfer for protection of collateral 1008 
 
 TRUST COMI'AMlvS 
 
 As executor and guardian 498, 887 
 
 Deposits of national l)ank with trust company 871 
 
 Investigation of private iiffnirs l)y Congressional committee 184 
 
 Power to guarantee dclit of another 874 
 
 TRUST FUNDS 
 
 Trust funds J'.lS-.-ni 
 
 ULTRA VIHF>? ACTS 
 Ultra Vires Acts ... .177-178, 823, 874, 884
 
 VOTING 
 
 Opinion Numbers 
 
 By executor in name of testator 243 
 
 By trustee in bankruptcy 242 
 
 Power of American Bankers Association dck^gate 1346 
 
 Rights of stockholders not voting 225 
 
 Single sliare as voting unit 439 
 
 Voting power of stoc'khokk>r 440 
 
 WAIVER OF PROTEST 
 
 Waiver of protest 1 170-1 17t) 
 
 WAREHOUSE RECEIPTS 
 
 Delivery of goods without taking up receipt 032 
 
 Negotiability 905 
 
 Validity as pledge 1078-1081
 
 
 Date 
 
 Due 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 PRINTED IN U.S. o. CAT. NO 24 161 Kw
 
 UC SOUTHERN '^EG"-"' 
 
 .^,,E^iPY'iC'L'- 
 
 AA 001 264 378