—— Part
III.
Business of Banking.
601
Sect. 5. (r). But it would appear that the Bills of Exchange Collection (Crossed Cheques) Amendment Act, 1906 (s), does not apply to of other dividend warrants, which are not cheques (a). A forged indorsement or the " not negotiable " crossing precludes Doc ume nts, the banker from setting up an independent title. Whether he can Negotiability, do so in other cases, or is justified in taking them for collection from anyone other than the payee, depends on the negotiability of a dividend warrant, which has never been judicially recognised (/;). Where the amount of a dividend warrant has been received in circumstances constituting conversion of the document, the damages recoverable by the true owner would be the face value, independent of any question of negotiability (c). A warrant for interest as distinguished from dividend if interest susceptible of effective crossing, can be so only either as a cheque or as an order on a banker issued by the customer (e).
warrants
,
Sub-Sect.
3.
Post Office
Money
Orders.
1226. These are not cheques, being drawn by one branch or Post Office agency of the Post Office on another. They are outside the ordinary money orders, crossed cheques legislation. They may, however, be crossed generally or specially, and will only be paid in accordance with such crossing (/). But a banker collecting postal money orders for his customer is absolutely protected whether they be crossed or not, and even if he has been negligent (r/). The collection must be for the customer, so that the banker would lose protection by taking for value or crediting them as cash. And as they are not negotiable (/<), he could not set up an independent title.
them
(r) Bills of Excliange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 95. Interest warrants, if distinguishable from cheques or dividend warrants, would not seem to come within the provisions of this section. (4 6 Edw. 7, c. 17. [a) The Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 95, does not make dividend warrants cheques it merely applies to them specilic sections of the Act itself. The amending Act of 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 17) does not enact that it is to be read as one Act with the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882. In its terms it applies only to cheques. (6) Compare Partridge v. Bank of England (1846), 9 Q. B. 396,_per Tindal, C.J., at p. 424, doubted in Goodioin v, Eobarts (1875), L. R. 10 Exch. 337, at p. 354. Possibly a custom of merchants could be proved at the present day making dividend warrants negotiable if payable to bearer or order. The Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 97 (3) (cl), is not sufficient to confer
negotiability. (c)
Compare
Bavins, junr. and Sims
v.
London and South
Westerti
Bank, [1900]
1
Q. B. 270. {d) The Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 95, specifies a warrant for the payment of "dividend," (e) See Revenue Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 55), s. 17. (/) Post Office (Money Orders) Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 58), s. 1 and Sched. I. Post Office (Money Orders) Act, 1880 (43 & 44 Vict. c. 33), s. 3.
Post Office (Money Orders) Act, 1880, supra, proviso to sect. 3. The proviso, which has the force of a substantive enactment (see Matthiessen v. London and County Bank (1879;, 5 C. P. D. 7, and see title Statutes), is not in its terms confined to crossed postal money orders, and makes no reterence to negligence or good faith, as does sect. 82 of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61). This proviso was not set up in Fine Art Society v. Union Bank of London (1886), 17 Q. B. D. 705, but a defence based upon it appears sound. ill) Fine Art Society v. Union Bank of London, supra. {g)
