London Legal Letter.
525
LONDON LEGAL LETTER. London, Oct. 2, 1895.
bank was not liable. Such gratuitous bailment by hanks is not customary in the United States, the convenient and AN incident of what may very properly be called the impregnable safe deposit institutions being resorted to for silly season — that long hiatus in domestic life when the sake of greater safety. But it is not only in this respect the urban denizens leave their comfortable homes for un that the banking customs and the laws of the two countries comfortable lodgings at the seaside, when the law courts widely differ. Here if A gives B an open cheque payable to B or his are hermetically sealed, when the theatre audiences are made up of country cousins, and even staid, respectable and order the bank upon which it is drawn will pay the cheque leading newspapers open their columns to lengthy com without making the slightest inquiry as to the identity of munications on such trivialities as "The Age of Love," B. It suffices if the paying teller is satisfied of the genuine — illustrates the differences between the customs of the ness of the draw er's signature. Of course if the drawer's English and American people, and the law which has signature is forged and the bank cashes the cheque, the grown up in the two countries out of these divergent bank is responsible to the drawer; but there its liability customs. The other day it was announced that Mrs. rests. The present Bills of Exchange Act provides that Langtry had lost,£40,000, a cool £200,000 worth of jewels. " where a banker upon whom a cheque is drawn pays it in She had gone abroad, and before doing so had deposited a good faith and in the ordinary course of business, it is not box containing these jewels with her bankers. A few days incumbent on the banker to show that the indorsement of thereafter a messenger appeared at the bank with what the payee was made by or under the authority of the per purported to be an order from Mrs. Langtry requesting the son whose indorsement it purports to be, and the banker is delivery to him of the jewels. The bank gave them up, deemed to have paid the bill in due course, although such and it was not until weeks had elapsed, and Mrs. Lang indorsement has been forged or made without authority." try had returned to town, that it was discovered that the And the act makes this remarkable definition of what is order was a forgery. It had been very cleverly executed meant by "good faith" in the preceding sentence : "A thing upon a sheet of note paper which had either been pur is deemed to be done in good faith within the meaning of loined from Mrs. Langtry's writing-table or made in exact this act where it is in fact done honestly, w hether it is done imitation of that used by Mrs. Langtry and bearing her ad negligently or not." This, standing alone, would seem to dress engraved thereon. In America, it is fair to presume, be a startling and monstrous perversion of the law in favor there would be a grave question as to the responsibility of of the banker; but it is not as bad as it looks. The same the bank. Here its exemption from liability arouses no Bills of Exchange Acts provide a way by which the drawer controversy, except perhaps among laymen. The loss will of a cheque may effectually protect himself if he desires unquestionably fall upon Mrs. Langtry; and that her legal to do so, and that is by "crossing " his cheque " generally" advisers appreciate this is evident from the fact that they or " specially." The cheque is crossed " generally " when are making diligent efforts to recover the valuables and two parallel lines, usually about an inch apart, are drawn that Mrs. Langtry is offering a reward of ^500 for such across the face of the cheque; thus crossed the cheque information as will lead to the conviction of the offender. will not be paid across the counter of a bank, but only Banks in England and banks in America are very different through the clearing house. The " specially " crossed institutions, and are governed by widely dissimilar laws. cheque is one upon which and within the crossed lines the name of a particular bank is written. When thus crossed The American bank is purely and sifnply a moneyed in the cheque can be paid only to the bank thus designated. stitution, and deals in nothing but cash and its representa tives. Here even the modern joint-stock banks preserve Then, the law says, provision has been made by which the some of the features of the old-fashioned family banking drawer of a cheque may protect himself; and if he fails to firms, and receive into their custody the valuables of their avail himself of this protection, but issues "open" or un clients of whatsoever nature, just as two hundred and fifty crossed cheques, he must take the responsibility, and not years ago the banks of that time were accustomed to nightly the bank. This custom thus sanctioned by law works ad take their coin and currency to the Goldsmiths Company mirably and to a greater degree of convenience to the pub for safe keeping. This part of the business of the modern lic than the American system, where, before a payee of a bank is rarely charged for, particularly where the customer cheque may get it cashed, he must be known to the maintains a satisfactory balance to his credit; and thus Mrs. cashier or be vouched for — often to the extent of the I.angtry's bankers escape liability on the ground that, being voucher having to add his name to that of the endorsement gratuitous or " naked " bailees, they are not chargeable of the payee, and incurring thereby an unpleasant responsi wjth ordinary negligence, but only with gross negligence. bility. And in connection with Mrs. Langtry is another bit The leading case (Giblin v. McMullin, L. R. 2 P. C. 317) goes much further even than Mrs. Langtry's. There a of gossip which is, or should be of interest to American customer deposited his strong box, containing securities, lawyers. It is announced that, having acquired a domicile with his bankers, who received nothing for their services, in California, she intends to obtain in that State a decree of he himself retaining the key. Certain debentures were divorce against her husband on the ground of his desertion abstracted by the cashier; and it was held by the Privy of her and failure to support her. Such a decree, based Council that as there was no proof of gross negligence the upon such grounds, would, for reasons which are apparent
