RELATING TO CROSSED CHEQUES. 11. Where a cheque is presented for payment, which does not at the time of presentation appear to be crossed, or to have had a crossing which has been obliterated, or to have been added to or altered otherwise than as authorised by this Act, a banker paying the cheque, in good faith and without negligence, shall not be responsible or incur any liability, nor shall the payment be questioned, by reason of the cheque having been crossed, or of the crossing having been obliterated, or having been added to or altered otherwise than as authorised by this Act, and of payment being made otherwise than to a banker or the banker to whom the cheque is or was crossed, or to his agent for collection, being a banker (as the case may be). 12. A person taking a cheque crossed generally or specially, bearing in either case the words "not negotiable," shall not have and shall not be capable of giving a better title to the cheque than that which the person from whom he took it had. But a banker who has in good faith and without negligence received payment for a customer of a cheque crossed generally or specially to himself shall not, in case the title to the cheque proves defective, incur any liability to the true owner of the cheque by reason only of having received such payment. Of the time when the cheque is issued. Page 3 of treatise. The view here expressed must be modified by the decisions in Bull v. Sullivan, 24 Law T., 130; where it was held, a cheque payable to order taken with a knowledge that it is post dated is valid; and Gatty v. Fry, 46 L. J., C. P., 605; where the same was held with regard to a similar cheque payable to bearer. We think, however, such cheques are still objectionable, as they may render the parties knowingly passing and taking them liable to penalties, and for the other reasons given in the treatise. The general rights and liabilities of the drawer of a cheque. Page 43 of treatise. A fresh section may now be added to this part, on the subject of forgery of indorsements. In Ogden v. Benuss, 1874, it was held that the 16 and 17 Vict., c. 59, s. 19 did not protect any person but the banker who paid the cheque having the forged indorsement, and that the banker receiving such a cheque was liable to the true holder, as the forged indorsement conferred no right. The same conclusion was arrived at in Bobbett v. Pinknett and in Lambert v. Mulkern and Arnold v. Cheque Bank. Rights and liabilities of bankers. Page 116 of treatise. Reference should be made to the case of Heywood v. Pickering, 43 L. J., Q. B., 145. Also to the case of Summers v. City Bank, 1874, relating to the Married Women's Property Act; where it was held that bankers may be sued by a married woman for breach of duty relating to an account kept by her by means of her separate earnings. INDEX. A. ACT OF BANKRUPTCY OF DRAWER, effect of notice of to banker, as to paying cheque, &c., 85, 101. ADMINISTRATOR, 57. AGENT, liability of, when drawer of a cheque, 44. his cash balance claimed by principal, 154, 155. AMOUNT for which cheque may be drawn, 8. APPOINTMENT, cheque as, 153. ASSIGNEE, how far liable on cheque misapplied by co-assignee, 51. B. BAILEE of cheque may cash it, if treated as cash, 58. BANKER, remedies of the holder of cheques against, 69 to 72. not liable to holder, unless after undertaking to pay, 71. should pay cheque on presentation, 73. not bound to pay cheque where funds have been applied in |