Officers.

Question 154.— The teller and ledger-keeper in a bank have both received a valid notice to stop payment of a certain cheque. It is presented to the teller for payment, and without requiring the holder to get it marked by the ledger-keeper as provided in the rule, he pays it. It is subsequently charged to the account by the ledger-keeper. Both officers have overlooked the notice stopping payment. Which should be held responsible?

(2) If a teller paid a forged cheque without requiring it to be marked by the ledger-keeper, and the latter subsequently charged it in the account without discovering the forgery, on whom would the responsibility rest ?

Answer.-—So far as the bank is concerned the loss if any was incurred as soon as the teller paid the item, and he should be held responsible. The ledger-keeper's act in charging the cheque to the customer's account would not change the bank's position, or relieve the teller from his responsibility, but if under the circumstances it could be fairly held that the ledger-keeper's negligence deprived the teller or the bank of an opportunity of recovering back the amount, the bank should in justice to the teller hold the ledger-keeper responsible for a portion of the loss.

(2) We would take a similar view in this case.

Answer.—So far as the bank is concerned the loss if any was incurred as soon as the teller paid the item, and he should be held responsible. The ledger-keeper's act in charging the cheque to the customer's account would not change the bank's position, or relieve the teller from his responsibility, but if under the circumstances it could be fairly held that the ledger-keeper's negligence deprived the teller or the bank of an opportunity of recovering back the amount, the bank should in justice to the teller hold the ledger-keeper responsible for a portion of the loss.

(2) We would take a similar view in this case.