Kentucky. Carter v. Richardson (Ky.), 60 S. W. 397.

Maryland. American Agricultural

Chemical Co. v. Scrimger, 130 Md. 389, L. R. A. 1917F, 394, 100 Atl. 774 (obiter).

Massachusetts. Wilkinson v. Blount Mfg. Co., 169 Mass. 374, 47 N. E. 1020.

Michigan. Baumgardner v. Henry, 131 Mich. 240, 91 N. W 169

Minnesota. National Bank v. Chicago, Burlington & Northern Ry. 44 Minn. 224, 20 Am. St. Rep 566, 9 L. R. A. 263, 46 N. W. 342, 560; Goodall v. Norton, 88 Minn. 1, 92 N. W. 445; First National Bank v. McConnell, 103 Minn. 340, 14 L. R. A. (N.S.) 616, 114 N. W. 1129; McFadden v. Follrath, 114 Minn. 85, 37 L. R. A. (N.S ) 201, 130 N. W. 542.

Missouri. Johnson-Brinkman Commission Co. v. Central Bank, 116 Mo. 558, 38 Am. St. Rep. 615, 22 S. W. 813.

Montana. United States National Bank v. Shupak, 54 Mont. 512, 172 Pac. 324.

Nebraska. National Life Ins. Co. v. Coble, 51 Neb. 5, 70 N. W. 503.

New Hampshire. Nason v. Fowler, 70 N. H. 291, 47 Atl. 263.

New York. Thomson v. Bank, 82 N. Y. 1; Thomas v. Westchester County, 115 N. Y 47, 4 L. R. A. 477, 21 N. E. 674.

Ohio. Fleig v. Sleet, 43 O. S. 53, 54 Am. Rep. 800, 1 N. E. 24; Hilsinger v. Trekett, 86 O. S. 286, 99 N. E. 305.

Oklahoma. Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Chattanooga Sav. Bank, 47 Okla. 748, L. R. A. 1916A, 669, 150 Pac. 190; Wheeler & Motter Mercantile Co. v. Kitchen, - Okla. - , 169 Pac. 877.

Pennsylvania. Loux v. Fox, 171 Pa. St. 68, 33 Atl. 190.

Tennessee. Springfield v. Green, 68 Tenn. (7 Baxt.) 301.

3 Bickford v. Bank, 42 111. 238, 89 Am. Dec. 436; Cincinnati Oyster & Fish Co. v. Bank, 51 O. S. 106, 46 Am. St. Rep.

560, 36 N. E. 833; Born v. Bank, 123 Ind. 78, 18 Am. St. Rep. 312, 7 L. R. A. 442, 24 N. E. 173; Andrews v. Bank, 56 Tenn. (9 Heisk.) 211, 24 Am. Rep. 300.

4 Colorado. Snyder v. Hamilton National Bank, - Colo. - , L. R. A. 1018F, 807, 172 Pac. 1069.

Kansas. Mordis v. Kennedy, 23 Kan. 406, 33 Am. Rep. 169.

Massachusetts. Weddigen v. Fabric Co., 100 Mass. 422.

New York. Carroll v. Sweet, 128 N. Y. 19, 13 L. R. A. 43, 27 N. E. 763.

Pennsylvania. Holmes v. Brings, 131 Pa. St. 233, 17 Am. St. Rep. 804, 18 Atl. 928.

5 Snyder v. Hamilton National Bank, - Colo. - , L. R. A. 1918F, 807, 172 Pac. 1069.

Whether a bank may recover a payment which it has made in reliance upon the account of the drawer or upon his credit, is discussed in Sec. 1559.

6 Interstate National Bank v. Ringo, 72 Kan. 116, 115 Am. St. Rep. 176, 3 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1179, 83 Pac. 119.

7 In re Perpall, 256 Fed. 758.

8 Johnson-Brinkman Commission Co. v. Central Bank, 116 Mo. 558, 38 Ami. St. Rep. 615, 22 S. W. 813.

9 National Bank v. Chicago, Burlington & Northern Ry., 44 Minn. 224, 20 Am. St. Rep. 566, 9 L. R. A. 263, 46 N. W. 342, 560.

10 Metropolitan National Bank v. Jones, 137 111. 634, 31 Am. St. Rep. 403, 12 L. R, A. 492, 27 N. E. 533.

11 United States. Downey v. Hicks, 66 U. S. (14 How.) 240, 14 L. ed. 404.

Alabama. Watt v. Gans, 114 Ala. 264, 62 Am. St. Rep. 99, 21 So. 1011.

Illinois. Brown v. Schintz, 202 111. 600, 67 N. E. 172.

Maryland. Anderson v. Gill, 79 Md. 812, 47 Am. St. Rep. 402, 25 L. R. A. 200, 20 Atl. 627.

New York. Carroll v. Sweet, 128 N. Y. 19, 13 L. R. A. 43, 27 N. E. 763.

Ohio. Hodgson v. Barrett, 33 O. S. 63, 31 Am. Rep. 527.

12 Board of Education v. Robinson, 81 Minn. 305, 83 Am. St. Rep. 374, 84 N. W. 105. (In this case the check was deposited in the bank on which it was drawn, which was then insolvent, but a going concern, and which failed before such deposit was checked out.)

See also, Knaffl v. Knoxville Banking & Trust Co., 130 Tenn. 336, L. R. A. 1015D, 402,170 S. W. 476.

13 Goodall v. Norton, 88 Minn. 1, 92 N. W. 445.

14 First National Bank v. McConnell, 103 Minn. 340, 14 L. R. A. (N.S.) 606, 114 N.W. 1129.

15 First National Bank v. McConnell, 103 Minn. 340, 14 L. R. A. (N.S.) 606, 114 N. W. 1129.

16 Wheeler & Motter Mercantile Co. v. Kitchen, - Okla. - , 169 Pac. 877.

17 Pollak v. Niall-Herin Co., 137 Ga. 23, 35 L. R. A. (N.S.) 13, 72 S. E. 415.

18 Smith Roofing & Contracting Co. v. Mitchell, 117 Ga. 772, 97 Am. St. Rep. 217, 45 S. E. 47. (The fact that after the canceled check had been surrendered to A by Y, Y asked for it, received it from A, and then protested it, does not destroy the effect of payment.) 19 Millhiser v. Marr, 128 N. Car. 318, 38 S. E. 887.

20 Sayles v. Cox, 05 Tenn. 579, 40 Am. St. Rep. 940, 32 L. R. A. 715, 32 S. W. 626.

See also, Pollak v. Niall-Herin Co., 137 Ga. 23, 35 L. R. A. (N.S.) 13, 72 S. E. 415.

21 McFadden v. Follrath, 114 Minn. 85, 37 L. R. A. (N.S.) 201, 130 N. W. 542.

"Under these same circumstances, the liability of the drawer of the check upon the original account, to pay which the check is drawn, should be held discharged, having regard to the general rules of law governing the correlated duties and rights of the parties, and to commercial usage and custom. The defendant gave his check to pay his account owing plaintiff. He delivered the check to the agent to whom the plaintiff had requested him to make delivery. When the check was given, and thereafter, the defendant had money to meet it on deposit in a solvent bank. In the usual course of business, he would not be called upon to do any other act for the benefit or protection of the payee, and the check would serve to pay the account. It does not seem that the defendant, in allowing his account to be charged with the amount of the check given the authorized agent of plaintiff, violated any commercial usage or legal duty. It would be a novel burden if the drawer of a check, given in the usual course of business, to the authorized agent of the payee, upon such check being indorsed by such agent, were charged with the duty of determining that the indorsement on the check was authorized. To establish such a rule would make payment by check a matter of uncertainty and some risk. Under the usual method of transacting business, the drawer of a check has no means of determining when the check is returned to him, stamped 'Paid,' whether the indorsement of the payee thereon was authorized or not. Whether a check is delivered to an agent or sent by mail, it usually comes into the hands of employees of the payee, who are not given the right, but are given the opportunity by the payee to indorse the check and receive the money, provided the bank neglects its duty to see that payment is made to the payee or his order. If the check is improperly paid, because of the dishonesty of the agent that the payee intrusts with the check, and the negligence of the bank, there would seem to be no sufficient reason for placing the responsibility therefor on the drawer of the check. The drawer of the check parted with control over it in the usual course of business, and in this case in the exact manner the payee requested. If. either the drawer or payee must suffer because of the dishonesty of the agent, the one who designated him to receive the check, and intrusted him with it, should suffer, rather than the drawer, who had no voice in the selection of such agent, and who is in, no way responsible for his acts.

Even if a check is not absolute payment, it is negotiable and thus represents the debt for which it is given; and accordingly a debtor who has given his check for a debt is not subject to garnishment as the debtor of the original creditor.24

"It is urged that under the facts herein the defendant, if he is obliged to pay this account, can recover from the bank the amount of the check cashed without authority and charged by the bank to defendant's account. But the liability of the defendant on the account must be determined by a constant rule. In this case the only question involved may perhaps be whether the payee or the drawer shall proceed against the bank. If, however, the bank, paying a check under circumstances such as here exist, and charging it to the account of the drawer, should thereafter become insolvent, either the drawer or payee of the check would suffer loss. Such loss should fall on the party more directly responsible for, and having control of, the agent whose dishonest use of the check made the loss possible." McFadden v. Foil-rath, 114 Minn. 85, 37 L. R. A. (N.S.) 201, 130 N. W. 542.

22 Bland v. Fidelity Trust Co., 71 Fla. 499, L. R. A. 1916F, 209, 71 So. 630; First National Bank v. Persall, 110 Minn. 333, 136 Am. St. Rep. 499, 125 N. W. 506, 675; First National Bank v. McNairy, 122 Minn. 215, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 977, 142 N. W. 139; United States National Bank v. McNair, 114 N. Car. 335, 19 S. E. 361.

23 Knaffl v. Knoxville Banking & Trust Co., 130 Tenn. 336, L. R. A. 1915D, 402,170 S. W. 476.

24 England. Pearce v. Davis, 1 Moody & R. 365.

Maryland. American Agricultural Chemical Co. v. Scrimger, 130 Md. 389, L. R. A. 1917F, 394, 100 Atl. 774.

Massachusetts. Getchell v. Chase, 124 Mass. 366.

Rhode Island. National Park Bank v. Levy, 17 R. I. 746, 19 L. R. A. 475, 24 Atl. 777.

South Dakota. Moreau River State Bank v. Japinga, 37 S. D. 4 4, 2 A. L. R. 504, 158 N. W. 786.