The doctrine of Price v. Neal, as it is called, has by no means escaped criticism.

"Many modern textwriters," said Mitchell, J., in Germania Bank v. Boutell,1 "some of them of learning and ability, have assailed the correctness of this doctrine, contending that the general rule as to money paid under mistake of fact should apply, and that the law ought to be that the bank, although in fault in not discovering the forgery of its customer's signature, can recover even from an innocent holder, if he will then be in no worse condition than if the bank had refused to pay the draft or check."2

In at least one jurisdiction, Pennsylvania, the rule has been changed by statute,3 and in a few others the courts have refused to adopt it.4