—
Bankers and Banking.
600 Sect.
5.
Collection of other
Documents.
banker would not be protected
if the documents were credited as cash before receipt of the money (in). It would seem not to be regarded as negligence in a banker to take these documents for collection for a party other than the named payee (n). Beyond this, their transferability would seem
doubtful. Sub-Sect. Dividend warrants.
2.
Dividend Warrants.
1225. With regard to dividend warrants which are strictly in cheque form, the banker's duties, liabilities, and protection are the same as with regard to other cheques. But dividend warrants payment of which is made conditional, e.g., on signature and production of an annexed receipt (o) or on presentation within a specified period, are not cheques. As to such dividend warrants, the rules as to presentation and notice of dishonour applicable to cheques are not binding. It is, however, the duty of the banker to present them in reasonable time and return them to the customer if not paid on presentation. The usage of bankers to require only one indorsement on a dividend warrant payable to several holders is preserved by the Bills of
Crossing.
Exchange Act, 1882 The crossed cheque
sections of that Act((;) apply to dividend
by reason
of their not being drawn on the bank which collects them. It is form of such documents is clearly within the section, Lord LiisiDLEY meant that, though the documents were effectively crossed by virtue of the Revenue Act, 1883, s. 17, and the crossed cheque sections incorporated thereby, the protection w as lost by reason of the documents having been credited as cash and not being negotiable, or that by reason of a forged indorsement no independent title was possible. (m) Sect. 17 of the Eevenue Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 55), merely enacts that sects. 76 to 82 inclusive of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, shall extend to any such document, and shall so extend in like manner as it the said document were a cheque. It does not make such documents cheques, and the amending Bills of Exchange (Crossed Cheques) Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 17), refers only to " cheques," and does not state that it is to be read as one Act with the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61). (n) Both in Bavins, junr. and Sims v. London and South Western Bank, [1900] 1 Q. B. 270, and Gordon v. London City and Midland Bank, [1902] 1 K. B. 242, the documents were taken from a third party, and no objection on this ground appears in the arguments or judgments. The words of the Revenue Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict, c. 55), s. 17, "intended to enable any person or body corporate to obtain payment from such banker of the sum mentioned in such document," might well be read as confining the operation of the section to dealings with the immediate payee. The exaction of the payee's receipt points in the same direction, though such receipt was not regarded as incompatible with a third party subsequently obtaining payment of a dividend warrant in Partridge v. Bank of England The proviso to sect. 17 of the Revenue Act, 1883, that (1846), 9 Q. B.'396. nothing therein contained is to be deemied to make such document a negotiable instrument, appears to use " negotiable " in the sense of transferable, as in sect, 8 of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61). It is difficult to conceive a transferable but not negotiable document other than a cheque crossed "not negotiable," which is purely a statutory creation. bill (o) Compare Ga^ntal and Counties Bank v. Gordon, [1903] A. C. 240. or cheque must be unconditional (Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict,
submitted
that, as the
A
c.
61),
s.
3).
(,2?)
45
&
(g)
lUd.,
46 Vict, ss.
c,
76—82.
61,
s.
97
(3) (d).
