5 Bullard v. Randall, 1 Gray, 605.

1 Coates v. Preston, 105 111. 470; Lowenstein v. Bressler, 109 Ala. 326; Eichelberger v. Finley, 7 Har. & J. 381; In Matter of Brown, 2 Story, 519. Contra, Bromley v. Comm. Nat. Bank, 9 Phila. 522.

2 Dana v. Third Nat. Bank, 95 Mass. 445. But the bank cannot force the holder to receive part payment. In Matter of Brown, 2 Story. 519.

3 Illinois State Bank v. Batty, 5 111. 200.

4 McCord v. CaL Nat. Bank, 96 Cal, 197.

5Metrop. Nat. Bank v. Race, 32 I11. App. 126; Gladstone Ex. Bank v. Keating, 94 Mich. 439. But a bank cannot refuse to pay a cheek which is payable to one for the account of another. Ridgeley Bank v. Patton, 109 111. 479. But in the absence of other knowledge, would a bank be justified in thinking from such a check that the person for whose account the check was given assented to the arrangement ? But probably it would be said that the depositor had the right to direct how payment should be made, and the bank owed no duty to the beneficiary of the check. The check in the above case was payable to an attorney for the account of his client, and the question did not arise.

6 State Nat. Bank v. Boettcher, 5 Colo. 185.

1 See note 11 to Sec. 146, ante, and Nat. Laf. Bank v. Cin'ti Oyster Co., 18 Wkly. Law Bul. 350. The bank becomes liable. Drovers' Nat. Bank v. Packing Co., 117 11L 100; Irving Bank v. Wetherald, 36 N. Y. 335.

2 Merchants' Bank v. State Bank, 10 Wall. 604 The certification need not be entered on the books or made in banking hours. See the last case and Brown v. Leckie, 43 I11. 497. But the bank is simply a debtor, not a trustea Girard Bank v. Bank, 39 Pa. 92.

3Larsen v. Breene, 12 Colo. 480; Metropolitan Bank v. Jones, 137 III

634; Born v. First Nat, Bank, 123 Ind. 78; Minot v. Russ, 156 Mass. 458. This result follows even though the certification was obtained at the request of the payee. Randolph Nat. Bank v. Hornblower, 160 Mass. 401. But this last decision is not sound, because there was a novation.

4 Lynch v. First Nat. Bank, 107 N. Y. 179; Goshen Nat Bank v. Bingham, 118 N. Y. 349. The owner of the check can claim only to the amount actually expended upon it. Brooklyn Trust Co. v. Toler, 65 Hun,. 187,138 N. Y. 675.

5 See the cases cited in the last note. The word used in the text is "indorsee," not "transferee." Indorsement is necessary. See the second case in last note.

6 Riverside Bank v. First Nat. Bank, 74 Fed. R. 276, and cases therein.

7 Second Nat. Bank v. Western Nat Bank, 51 Md. 128; Irving Bank v. Wetherald, 36 N. Y. 335 (but see this case explained in Riverside Bank v. First Nat. Bank, supra)', Louisiana State Bank v. Hibernia Bank, 26 La. Ann. 399; Bank of Republic v. Baxter, 31 Vt. 101, semble; Dillaway v. Northwestern Nat. Bank, 82 111. App. 71. This last case says the check's certification may be rescinded where no rights have intervened. But by the very nature of the transaction rights have intervened, because the drawer's debt to the payee was paid, and the payee has parted with full value, as Metropolitan Bank v. Jones, 137 I11. 634, shows. This assumption in the face of the absolute fact of novation is inexplicable. But the fallacy lies at the base of all these erroneous decisions. But the rule would protect actual expenditure which is a contradiction in terms, for he has already taken the check as payment. As a matter of deduction, the same rule would apply to a certification obtained by fraud. It may be revoked, except in the hands of a bona fide holder.8 The officers of the bank who have implied authority to certify checks are the president,9 the cashier,10 the paying teller,11 and, of course, the board of directors.12 The usual form of acceptiftg is by writing or stamping the word "good," or " certified " upon it. But a verbal acceptance is good,13 except where the drawer has no funds,14 and except in those states whose statutes require a written acceptance.15 Although it is said that a promise to accept a check is not binding where the drawer has no funds,16 yet, if the bank has agreed to accept the check with one who advances value to pay the check, the bank becomes an acceptor.17 A certification made where the drawer has no funds is not binding, except in the hands of a bona fide holder of the check;18 but it should appear that the certification took place in the usual course of business, even in the case of one in good faith obtaining it.19 But the bank's liability upon a mistaken or a fraudulent certification is only to the extent of the bona fide holder's loss.20 Where the certification is of forged or altered paper, so forged before certification, the certificate warrants the signature of the drawer, but not that of an indorser,21 nor the amount of the check,22 and a custom is not admissible proof to show that it does.23 The bank is not liable to an innocent payee or holder of a certified check, which is altered after certification, unless its negligence gave an opportunity for the alteration.24 A certification of a check payable to a fictitious payee is good in the hands of a bona fide holder.25 A demand upon a certified check is necessary before suing upon it, but that demand need not be made within a reasonable time.26 The certified check is good until its efficacy expires by virtue of the statute of limitations.27 It is said that a bank cannot set off the holder's indebtedness to it as against its liability on a certified check,28 but that proposition is, of course, not sound. Possession of a certified check by the drawer raises the presumption that it belongs to the drawer.29

See Brooklyn Trust Co. v. Toler, in note 4, supra.

8 Goshen Nat. Bank v. Bingham, 118 N. Y. 349. See note 5, supra.

9 Claflin v. Farmers' Bank, 25 N. Y. 293; Wild v. Passamaquoddy Bank, 3 Mason, 506.

10 Merchants' Bank v. State Bank, 10 Wall. 604

11 Farmers' Bank v. Butchers' Bank, 28 N. Y. 475. But contra, Mussey v. Eagle Bank, 9 Met 373.

12 See the last two cases. 13Jarvis v. Wilson, 46 Conn. 90;

Pierce v. Kittredge, 115 Maas. 374; Farmers' Bank v. Dunbar, 32 Neb. 487; Barnet v. Smith, 30 N. H. 256; and see note 4 to Sec. 146, ante.

14 Morse v. Massachusetts Nat. Bank, 1 Holmes, 209. It is within the statute of frauds. But an oral acceptance is good where the drawer is acting for another who has funds. Leach v. Hill, 76 N. W. R.667.

15 Those states consider an acceptance of a check governed by the rule as to a bill of exchange.

16 Bowen v. Needles Nat. Bank, 87 Fed. R. 430; Morse v. Massachusetts Nat Bank, 1 Holmes, 209.

17 Allen Co. Bank v. Carter, 88 Tenn. 287. This last case goes far enough. The Illinois cases are flagrant errors. See note 10, Sec. 146, ante.

18 Stevens v. Com. Exchange Bank. 3 Hun, 147; Gibson v. National Park Bank, 98 N. Y. 87.

19 Dorsey v. Abrams, 85 Pa. 299.