There is a saying ascribed to a noted political thinker that "man is a reasoning and not a reasonable animal." The fact that banks have sometimes tried to insist upon customs which are not reasonable from any standpoint, not even their own, may be proof of the aphorism. Thus it was once insisted that a bank by custom could establish the rule that it would not correct mistakes after a customer had left the banking room. Such an alleged custom was held to be " immoral," unreasonable and void.1 Such was the wrongful holding as to a usage to treat the passing of checks to the credit of the depositor as a receipt and not a transfer;2 and a custom among banks to examine a check indorsed by another bank and to return it after having credited it is unreasonable.3 On the same ground, probably, a bank's custom to notify a non-resident of the maturity of a note instead of demanding payment was judicially condemned4 where it was sought to hold the indorser.

4 Haddock v. Citizens' Bank, 53 Iowa, 542. Compare Merchants' Bank v. Woodruff, 6 Hill, 174, which is contra, and cases in note 1.

5 Niagara Co. Bank v. Baker, 15 Ohio St. 68; Talbot v. First Nat. Bank, 76 N. W. R. 726.

1 Duvall v. Farmers' Bank, 9 Gill & J. 31.

2Grissom v. Commercial Nat. Bank, 87 Tenn. 350.

3 See Williams v. National Bank, 70 Md. 343.

4 Isbell v. Lewis, 98 Ala. 550.

5 Williams v. National Bank, 70 Md. 343.

6 Patriotic Bank v. Farmers' Bank, 2 Cranch, C. C. 560; Kilgore v. Buckley, 14 Conn. 363. Compare Sahlien v. Bank of Lonoke, 90 Tenn. 221; Howard v. Walker, 92 Tenn. 452.

7 Citizens' Bank v. Graffin, 31 Md. 507.

8 Barnes v. Ontario Bank, 19 N. Y. 152, 169.