In banks where one teller acts at both the receiving and the paying counter, there can be no discrimination between the paying and the receiving teller, but in many banks the two functions are in separate officers, and in some banks these officers each have assistants. But the public are not supposed to know the functions of those various officers in the bank.1 It is the business of the receiving teller to receive all the deposits at the bank, in subordination, of course, to the cashier. Therefore the bank is liable for the teller's receipt of packages for safekeeping* where no order has been given to the contrary.2 He is also charged with the duty of receiving notes and drafts for collection, as a general rule; and it has been held that the bank was responsible for a note left with the paying teller for collection, although it was indorsed by a general indorsement ;3 and the bank is also liable for a collection left with the assistant receiving teller who was temporarily acting.4 The paying teller is the proper officer to make payments over the counter for checks drawn upon the bank. He is the proper officer to whom to apply as to the genuineness of a certificate upon a check; but if he fails to state that a check has been stopped to one who merely inquires as to the genuineness of the signature, the bank is not bound by his failure.5 The note teller of the bank cannot erase a name of a maker on a note so as to bind the bank.6 It would seem to follow as a general principle that an act of alteration made by any officer of a bank, who had not the power to make the alteration, would be an act of spoliation by a stranger. A paying teller, or any other officer of a bank, cannot bind his bank by an act unlawful and unauthorized, unless the act be a tort.7 A paying teller has no authority to certify a check where the drawer of the check has not sufficient funds to meet it, although he has general authority to certify checks;8 and it seems that the paying teller binds the bank, where a check is left with him for collection upon a depositor, where the paying teller agreed that he would cause the pheck to be paid during the day if the depositor should have sufficient funds during the day in the bank.9 But the paying teller has no authority to receive deposits, and where he takes a deposit, but embezzles it, the bank is not liable;10 nor is the bank liable where the book-keeper takes a deposit, and enters it upon the customer's pass-book and in the ledger, but in no other place.11

1 Bangor Sav. Bank v. Wallace, 87 Me. 28. See also Sec. 232, post.

2 Bristol Co. Sav. Bank v. Keavy, 128 Mass. 298.

3 Canadian Bank v. Coumbe, 47 Mich. 358.

4 Such officers are the managers, for instance, of Wells, Fargo & Co., at Salt Lake City, or New York or London.

5 Smith v. Lawson, 18 W. Va. 212. 6 Burrill v. Nahant Bank, 2 Met. 163

7 Potter v. Merchants' Bank, 28 N. Y. 641. This is one of the decisions resulting from the mistaken New York doctrine that a deposit for credit passes complete title to the bank. This ruling can be correct only as to one who knew a clerk was temporarily acting. A person who comes into a bank and finds a man acting as cashier has the right to assume he has the powers of cashier.

1 See the next case.

2Pattison v. Syracuse Bank, 1 Hun, 606. Compare, however, Lloyd v. West Branch Bank, 15 Pa. 172.

3 City Nat. Bank v. Mastin, 70 Tex. 643.

4Hotchkiss v. Artisans' Bank, 2 Keyes, 564

5 Clews v. New York Banking Ass'n, 89 N. Y. 418, reversing 8

Daly, 476. The lower court made the correct decision. The bank was afterward held liable on the ground of negligenoa See Clews v. Bank, 105 N. Y. 398, 114 N. Y. 70. The court reversed itself, but would not admit it.

6 Marine Bank v. Terry, 40 111. 255.

7 Clark v. Metropolitan Bank, 3 Duer, 241.