—
—
Bankers and Banking.
608 Sect.
would have
6.
Payment
of
granted
to
obey
it,
but such an injunction ought not to be
(e).
Cheques.
1235. Wrongful dishonour.
If
cheque, he credit (/).
a banker without justification dishonour his customer's is Hable to the customer in damages for injury to Actual proof of injury is not necessary to warrant
damages (g). The holder has no remedy against the banker, unless the banker has admitted to him that he holds money specially to meet the substantial
particular cheque
Sect.
(//).
7.
Protection to Bankers paying Cheques. Sub-Sect.
Bearer cheques. Fictitious
payee.
Absence of negligence.
A
1.
Bearer Cheques.
of which the payee is a fictitious or non-existing treated by the banker as payable to bearer (i), though ostensibly payable to such payee or order (k). It would appear that documents made payable to an impersonal payee or order, e.g., " Wages or order," " Petty cash or order," are not within the above rule (l). Nor is a person fictitious or non-existing within the rule where he is a real person known to the drawer and intended by him to have the benefit of the cheque, although the drawer is induced to insert the name and draw by fraudulent representations of a third party, and the ostensible payee could never have enforced payment of the cheque (m). But in such case the paying banker would usually be protected as having paid on a forged indorsement (n). A banker who in good faith and without negligence (o) pays a
1236.
person
cheque
may be
is free from all liability (p), and though the holder had no title or a
bearer cheque on presentation
can debit his customer
(q)
Fontaine- Besso7i v. Parr's Banhing Co. and Alliance Bank (1895), 12 T. L. K. As to crarnisliee order against customer, see p. 585, ante. (/) Marzetti v. Williams (1830), 1 B. & Ad. 415. Summers v. City Bank (1874), L. E. (g) Bolin v. Steivard (1854), 14 C. B. 595
(e)
121.
9
d
P. 580.
Boyd V. Emmerson (1834), 2 A. & E. 184. For definition of a bearer cheque, see p. 569, ante. Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 A^ict. c. 61), s. 8 (3). Bank of England v. Vagliano, [1891] A. C. 107. {k) Ibid., s. 7 (3) Vaughan (1764), 3 Burr. ]5l6,per Lord Mansfield, at p. 1523, (l) Grant v. " There was no person originally named as tlie payee. Pay to ship It runs, Fortune or bearer'"; ibid.,per Wilmot, J., at p. 1528, " No person at all is named. It is, Pay to ship Fortune or bearer.'" Compare Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 Bank of England v. Vagliano, (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 2 (definition of person ") Compare, however. Lord Herschell, at supra., per Lord Selborne, at p. 129. The Council of the Institute of Bankers have decided that such cheques p. 153. cannot safely be treated as payable to bearer, see " Questions on Banking Practice," No. 1938, Journal of Institute of Bankers, March, 1904. (m) Vinden v. Hughes, [1905] 1 K. B. 795, distinguishing Bank of England Macbeth v. V. Vagliano, supra, and Clutton v. Attenhorough, [1897] A. C. 90 North and South Wales Bank, [1906] 2 K. B. 718. (h) (i)
.
'
'
See p. 609, post. Carlon v. Ireland (1856), 5 Bellamy v. Marjoribanks (1852), 7 Exch. 389 E. & B. 765. See Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 80, as to crossed cheques paid in good faith and without negligence. true (p) Charles v. Blackwell (1877), 2 C. P. D. 151, at p. 163 (not liable to {n) (o)
owner). (q)
Charles v. Blackwell, supra, at p. 158.
