wrappers, but in inferior wrappers, so that the silk deteriorated in value, in consequence whereof the said purchasers lawfully refused to accept delivery of the silk. 4. The defendants afterwards agreed to buy the said silk from the plaintiffs for £1000, and to indemnify the plaintiff's against all losses sustained by them in respect of the nonfulfilment of the contract of the sale to the purchasers first mentioned. 5. The defendants have refused to accept delivery of, or to pay for, the said silk, or to indemnify the plaintiffs as aforesaid. 1. On the 10th October, 1883, the defendants undertook to pack in original wrappers thirteen bales of silk, but not fourteen bales. One of the fourteen bales had been previously delivered to the plaintiffs, packed in a Hessian bag. 2. The defendants had not notice, and they do not admit that the said thirteen bales of silk were to be packed in original wrappers, for the purpose of forwarding the same to Lyons in France, in fulfilment of a contract made by the plaintiffs for the sale thereof or otherwise, and the defendants do not admit that such contract was made. 3. On or about the 28th December, 1883, the plaintiffs required the defendants to deliver the said thirteen bales of silk to Messrs. N. H. and Co., which the defendants did. 4. The defendants did not agree to purchase the said silk, or to indemnify the plaintiffs against any losses. 5. The defendants have paid the sum of £21 into Court in respect of the cause of action admitted, and say that the said sum is enough to satisfy the plaintiffs' claim in respect thereof. Bankers (a). Action against Bankers for Dishonouring a Customer's Cheque. 1. On May 18th, 1883, the defendants, who are bankers, had £500 at their bank, and in their hands, belonging to the plaintiff, who is a trader. 2. On May 18th, 1883, the defendants refused to pay a cheque (a) If a banker refuses to pay a cheque drawn upon him by a customer, Liability of who keeps an account with him, and who has sufficient assets in the hands a banker of the banker to meet the cheque at the time it is presented for payment, dishonourthe customer is entitled to recover substantial damages without proof of ing cusactual damage, as the dishonouring of a cheque is likely to be very in- tomer's jurious to the credit of persons. (Rolin v. Steward, 23 L. J. C. P. cheque. 148.) It has been held that the different banks of a banking company are, as regards their separate customers, separate companies, so that a customer who keeps an account with one branch has no right to draw cheques on, and have them cashed by another branch: (Woodland v. Fear, 26 L. J. Q. B. 202; 7 E. & B. 519.) Therefore where A. received payment for a cheque drawn on branch C. at branch D., and the cashier paying at the latter did not know, as was the fact, that the account of the drawer of the cheque was overdrawn at branch C., it was held that A. must refund the amount of the cheque. (S.C.) Generally as to the practice of branch Branch banks, see Prince v. Oriental Bank, 3 App. Cas. 325; 47 L. J. P. C. 42; banks. 38 L. T. 41, 26 W. R. 543. For some purposes, however, it would seem that branch banks are not regarded as distinct. Thus where a customer had an account with two branches of a bank, it was held that in the absence of any special agreement with their customer, the bank had a right to consider the two accounts as one, and to refuse the customer's cheque, when on adding the two accounts together the balance was against him. (Garnett v. McKewan, L. R. 8 Ex. 10; 42 L. J. Ex. 1; 27 L. T. 560; 21 W. R. 57. But if a banker pays the cheque of a customer erroneously supposing that he had funds, he cannot recover the amount from the person to whom the cheque is paid. (Chambers v. Miller, 32 L. J. C. P. 30.) Where a customer pays into his bankers a sum of money to meet a As to bill, and the bankers undertake to apply the money to the payment of right of the particular bill, but afterwards fail to do so, and dishonour the bill party when presented to them, the customer may, but the holder of the dis- other than honoured bill may not, have an action against them. (Moore v. Bushell, customer 27 L. J. Ex. 3.) It has been suggested that in such a case the holder of to sue the bill would have a remedy in equity as a matter of trust. (Story's banker. Equity Jurisprudence, vol. 2, pp. 288 to 291; but see the decision of Malins, V.-C., contra, in Hill v. Royds, L. R. 8 Eq. 290.) If a banker pays a forged cheque he will generally have to bear the loss himself; and if he pays a cheque which has been fraudulently altered in amount he will have to suffer, unless the drawer has by his forged cheques by bankers. for £300, drawn by the plaintiff in favour of Messrs. W. and L., Action by Bankers on an Overdrawn Account. Between August 1st, 1881, and September 29th, 1883, the plaintiffs, who are bankers, lent divers sums of money to the defendant, and paid divers sums of money at the defendant's request, and to his use, amounting in all to £271 10s., which, with £27 18. for interest, and £4 4s. for commission, agreed to be paid, is now due by the defendant to the plaintiffs. Particulars, which exceed three folios, were delivered to the defendant before action. 1. On October 15th, 1883, four bills of exchange for £35 each, dated October 13th, 1883, each accepted by John Smith, and drawn by John Jones, were indorsed by the defendant, and accepted by the plaintiffs in discharge of the alleged cause of action. Payment of negligence facilitated the commission of the fraud. (Byles on Bills, 12th ed., p. 336.) This is the general rule, but by the 16 & 17 Vict. c. 59, 8. 11, if a draft or order (which includes a cheque) drawn upon a banker for a sum payable to order or demand, when presented for payment, purports to be indorsed by the person to whom the same is drawn payable, that is a sufficient authority to the banker to pay the amount to the bearer, although the signature indorsed be in fact a forgery. But this enactment does not protect any other person than the banker on whom the draft or order is drawn ; it does not protect any third banker who cashes it on the faith of the indorsement. (See Ogden v. Benas, L. R. 9 C. P. 513; 43 L. J. C. P. 259; 30 L. T. 683; 22 W. R. 805. Cf. Charles v. Blackwell, 2 C. P. D. 151 ; 46 L. J. C. P. 368; 36 L. T. 195; 25 W. R. 472. As to the liabilities of bankers and others paying cheques in disregard of general or special crossings on them or of the words "not negotiable on them see the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61, ss. 76-82), and Matthieness v. London & County Bank, 5 C. P. D. 7 41 L. T. 35; 48 L. J. C. P. 529; 27 W. R. 838. Bankers have a general lien on all securities deposited with them as bankers by a customer, unless there be an express contract or circumstances that show an implied contract inconsistent with the lien. Brandon v. Barnett, 12 Cl. & Fin. 787; London Chartered Bank of Australia v. White, 4 App. Cas. 413; 48 L. J. C. P. 75. 2. Alternatively the defendant compounded with his creditors, under the 126th section of the Bankruptcy Act, 1869, and duly tendered to the plaintiffs the composition on the day appointed. 3. The defendant has paid into Court the sum of £15 78., the amount of the said composition, and says that sum is enough to satisfy the plaintiffs' claim. Action against Bankers for Dishonouring Customer's Cheque, setting out a special Undertaking that it should be paid. 1. The plaintiff, who is a trader, and a customer of the defendants, who are bankers, has suffered damage by the defendants' breach of a contract to apply a sum of £120 9s. 8d., paid on August 31st, 1883, by the plaintiff to the defendants, in honouring a cheque for that amount, which the plaintiff was about to draw in favour of Messrs. A. & Co. 2. On September 1st, 1883, the said cheque was presented by Messrs. A. & Co. to the defendants for payment, and by them dishonoured. 1. They deny that they ever agreed to apply the sum of £120 9s. 8d., referred to in the statement of claim, or any other sum in honouring a cheque for that or any other amount drawn, or to be drawn, by the plaintiff in favour of Messrs. A. & Co. 2. When the cheque referred to in the statement of claim was presented, the plaintiff's account with the defendants was overdrawn to an amount exceeding £2000. 3. The said sum of £120 9s. 8d. was on August 31st, 1883, paid by the plaintiff to the defendants to the general credit of the plaintiff's banking account, and upon which the plaintiff was then indebted to the defendants in a sum of £2573 11s. The defendants, on August 31st, 1883, placed the said sum of £120 98. 8d. to the general credit of the plaintiff's said banking account, and appropriated the same in part payment of the said sum of £2573 11s. Counter-claim. The defendants say that: 1. Between the months of April and August, 1884, the defendants advanced and lent to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff borrowed and received from the defendants sums of money amounting, along with the agreed rate of interest, in the whole to the sum of £1705. Full particulars have been delivered to the plaintiff before action. The defendants claim £1705. Action by Bankers to recover the amount of a Cheque paid by Mistake. 1. The plaintiff is the public officer of the C. & C. Banking Company, which has its principal place of business at C. and independent branches at P. and A. 2. On April 25th, 1883, the said company, by its servant at its P. branch, on the credit of the defendant, and at his request, cashed a cheque for him and paid to him £392. The said cheque was drawn by one J. W. on the A. branch. When it was presented J. W. was largely indebted to the company, and the said cheque was dishonoured. The plaintiff claims £392 and interest thereon. The defendant says: Defence. 1. He denies that the branches at A. and P. are independent of one another or of the company's principal place of business at C. 2. The cheque was not drawn on the A. branch but on the company generally. 3. The cheque was not cashed by the company's servant on the credit or at the request of the defendant but in the ordinary of business. way |