The collecting bank receives a certain power over the collection when it receives it. On the analogy of an agency, the holder may revoke the power, if the bank has not acquired a lien upon the proceeds, at any time before the collection has been made.1 An injunctional order forbidding the collection revokes the power and is binding upon all those who have notice or knowledge of the order.2 The power is revoked, also, by the insolvency of the collecting bank;3 and since the reception of a collection by a bank which is known to its officers to be insolvent is a fraud, the power to collect in such a case ought to be considered as never having been given to the bank.4 The bank itself cannot revoke the so-called agency merely by making an erasure upon its books.5

6 Minier v. Second Nat. Bank, 13 N. Y. St R. 222. But not if the person depositing the cheek deceives the bank. Middlesex Co. v. State Bank, 32 N. J. Eq. 467.

7Steinhart v. National Bank, 94 Cal. 362. This case can hardly be reconciled with cases of higher authority on the effect of payment. See Sec. 158, ante.

8 See Sec. 142, ante. This is the rule in England. Roberts v. Tucker, 16 Q. B. 560.

9Watervliet Bank v. White, 1 Denio, 608.

10 This follows from the fact that the bank must take all steps proper to collect. See Indig v. Nat City Bank, 80 N. Y. 100.

11 The bank would not transfer anything by applying on the note.

12 Bellows v. Norton, 12 Heisk. 319.

13 Merchants' Bank v. Meyer, 56 Ark. 499, and cases cited therein.

1 Semble, Ward v. Smith, 7 Wall. 447. But revocation could not cut off the bank's lien.