— Part
III.
Business of Banking.
595
Sect. 3. Crown is not bound by the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, since it is not specially named therein (o), it would be negligence for a banker Collection to take for private account cheques payable to tax-collectors, excise of Cheques, officials, and the like under their official denominations. So perhaps it would be negligence to take for the private account of one executor a cheque payable to executors as such (p). The fact that cheques paid in by a stockbroker may possibly represent money of his clients in his hands has no effect on the collecting banker (q). The omission to detect an irregularity in the indorsement or to notice that it does not ostensibly conform to what would be the proper indorsement would constitute negligence (r). It has been suggested that the fact that a cheque is crossed " not negotiable " of itself puts the banker on inquiry (s) but it is submitted that such is not the case(^).
1218. The crossing to a particular account, as "account payee" Crossing account of A. B.," has no warrant or recognition in the Bills of "account Exchange Act, 1882 (a). It does not affect the transferability of the ^^•^^^* cheque (b). Nor, it is submitted, does it affect its negotiability (c). This particular crossing has been in use too long for it to be disregarded, and it must be taken to convey an intimation to the collecting banker that the proceeds of the cheque are only to be placed to the specified account (d) It is therefore the custom of most banks to decline to take the cheque for any other account, and a disregard of the intimation would probably be deemed negligence. or
.
1219. To entitle the banker to protection he must only receive for a customer {e). A customer is a person having
payment (o)
As
to
the extent to which
the
Crown
is
bound by
statute,
see
title
Statutes. {p) Compare, however, Shields v. Bank of Ireland, [1901] L. E, 1 Ir. 222, where the Court appears to have seen nothing^ irregular in an executor paying executorship
money
into his private account. TJiomson v. Clydesdale Bank, [1893] A. C. 282. (r) Bavins, junr. and Sims v. London and South Western Bank, [1900] 1 Q. B. 270. {s) Great Western Rail. Go. v. London and Gounty Banking Go., [1901] A. C. 414, per Lord Brampton, at p. 422. Compare Bevan v. The National Bank (1906), 23 T. L. R. 65, per Channell, J., at p. 67. (t) These words being merely part of the crossing, negligence in respect of a This particular crossing crossed cheque must be something outside the crossing. being for the protection of the public, the banker is entitled to correlative proIn Gapital and Gounties Bank v. Gordon, [1903] A. C. 240, Lord tection. Brampton's view (note (s), supra) was either not pressed or not adopted. Compare that case in the Court of Appeal, [1902] 1 K. B. 242, at p. 275. (a) 45 & 46 Vict. c. 61. {b) National Bank v. Silke, [1891] 1 Q. B. 435. (c) If it did, it would have the effect of " not negotiable " without statutory sanction compare National Bank v. Silke, supra. The word " account " points to the banker, not a transferee. {d) Akrokerri {Atlantic) Mines, Ltd. v. Economic Bank, [1904] 2 K. B. 465 Bevan v. The National Bank, supra. " The protection (e) Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61),' s. 82. conferred by sect. 82. is conferred only on a banker who receives payment for a customer, that is, who receives payment as a mere agent for collection." The bank should be " a mere conduit pipe for conveying the cheque to the bank on which it is drawn and receiving tlie money from that bank for their customer" [Gapital and Gounties Bank v. Gordon, supra, per Lord Macnaghten, at pp. 245, (q)
246).
Q Q 2
Receipt for customer.
