There is no branch of business, unless it be shipping, where customs and usages cut so large a figure as in banking. In a former chapter the influence of usage in determining the duties of the various officers, as well as their powers, has been noticed. Customs have a large influence in governing the dealings of customers and traders at the bank.1 The general principles of law as to usages are comparatively well settled, yet even here courts display a tendency in some instances to disregard the settled law. In the following sections cases are examined, but others will be found below.2

Sec. 114. Usage Must Be Lawful

A usage or a custom cannot change the express rule of law or statute.1 Days of grace are sometimes established by statute, and therefore a custom cannot change that law;2 but a custom can add another day to the three days allowed by statute or by the general rule of law.3 But where days of grace are established merely by the general local usage, a particular custom may exonerate a bank for failing to allow days of grace, thereby discharging an indorser.4 Two cases are found which solemnly hold that a bank cannot increase the legal rate of interest by a custom.5 It ought not to require a judicial decision to determine that a man, by habitually violating a law, cannot obtain the right to violate it, and thus repeal it as to himself.

1Allen v. Merchants' Bank, 22 Wend. 215; Bell v. Hagerstown Bank, 7 Gill, 216. 2 See Sec. Sec. 261 and 288,post 1 Piscataqua Ex. Bank v. Carter, 20 N. H. 246; Bank of Alexandria v. Deneale, 2 Cranch, C. C. 488; Marine Bank v. Chandler, 27 I1L 525; First Nat. Bank v. Taliaferro, 72 Md. 164; Shaw v. Jacobs, 89 Iowa, 713; First Nat Bank v. Nelson, 105

Ala. 180; Allen v. St Louis Nat Bank, 120 U. S. 20.

2 Morrison v. Bailey, 5 Ohio St 13, Bowen v. Newell, 8 N. Y. 190; Mechanics' Bank v. Merchants' Bank, 6 Met. 13; Perkins v. Franklin Bank, 21 Pick. 483.

3 Renner v. Bank of Columbia, 9 Wheat 581; Bank of Washington v. Triplett, 1 Pet 25.