The general law applicable to presentment for acceptance and payment, demand, notice of non-payment and protest will be assumed for the present. The matter will be found fully considered under the head of "Exchanges," at section 205, post, et seq. The primary duty imposed upon a bank by taking paper for collection is to present it at the proper time, if presentment is necessary, and to demand payment at the proper time.1 But banking law permits some modification in some jurisdictions to the effect that banking customs may vary the rules otherwise applicable. Thus, the owner of paper has merous other cases which can be cited in support of the text, and it is believed that no court would now hold otherwisa The principle applies between banks as if the transmitting bank were holder and the corresponding bank the primary collecting agent.

1 Bank of Washington v. Triplett, 1 Pet. 25; McKinster v. Bank of Utica, 9 Wend. 46; Capitol State Bank v. Lane, 52 Miss. 677; American Exp. Co. v. Pinckney, 29 I11. 392; Fabens v. Mercantile Bank, 23 Pick. 330. It must follow instructions if any are given (Cent. Ga. Bank v. Cleveland Nat Bank, 59 Ga 667), and otherwise it may follow the course of business. Ide v. Bremer Co. Bank, 73 Iowa, 58.

2 Sahlien v. Bank, 90 Tenn. 221. A full collection of cases upon this subject may be found in 21 L. R. A. 441. They are generally upheld as against those who know of them and those who ought to be held to have known.

3 See cases cited in note 1 to this section.

4 Capitol State Bank v. Lane, 52 Miss. 677.

5 SeeSec. 176, ante.

6 British Mort. Co. v. Tibbals, 63 Iowa, 468. And some courts apply this rule to a check taken. Citizens' Bank v. Houston, 98 Ky. 189. See Second Nat. Bank v. Cummings, 89 Tenn. 609.

7 See Sec. 176, ante. Contra are Essex Bank v. Bank of Montreal, 7 Biss. 193; Bank of Antigo v. Union Trust

Co., 149 I11. 343. One case, by a divided court, applied this rule to a draft. Indig v. City Nat. Bank, 80 N. Y. 100. But the usual mode of payment is to credit the remitting bank. In the particular case it is difficult to see what difference there would have been between crediting the amount and sending the draft is governed by the same rules, whether it is held liable to the holder or its immediate employer.21

8 Ivory v. State Bank, 36 Mo. 475.

9 Huff v. Hatch, 2 Disn. 63.

10 Mound City Co. v. Comm. Nat. Bank, 4 Utah, 353.

11 Louisiana Ins. Co. v. Louisiana State Bank, 3 Mart. (N. S.) 610. But if otherwise uninformed may follow the address on note. Chapman v. Union Bank, 32 How. Pr. 95.

12 See Sec. 176, ante, notes 12 and 13.

13 Finch v. Karste, 97 Mich. 20. It defer the holder's claim while it secures its own claim;14 but if it give the owner of the paper timely notice it may secure a priority for itself.15 If payment or acceptance be refused, the bank must immediately give notice of non-payment or non-acceptance as required by law,16 and must take all the steps necessary to charge any indorser upon the paper. Any failure to do so is a breach of duty and is negligence.17 If the draft shows the bank where the acceptor is supposed to have funds, it should present to that bank,18 for it is the duty of the collecting bank to make demand at that place or presentment for payment.19 If the paper is indorsod generally to the Collecting bank, it is not negligence in it to indorse it generally.20 The liability of a correspondent bank may have the implied authority to buy in the property sold. Marks v. Bodie Bank, 8 Pac. R. 807.

14 Finch v. Karste, 97 Mich. 20. See U. S. Nat. Bank v. Westervelt, 75 N. W. R, 857 (wrong).

15 Freeman v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 78 Iowa, 150.

16 Bank of Mobile v. Huggins, 8 Ala. 206; Nat. Pahquioque Bank v. First Nat Bank, 36 Conn. 225; Bank of Hanover v. Kenan, 76 N. C. 340; Wingate v. Mechanics' Bank, 10 Pa. 104; Woolen v. New York Bank, 12 Blatchf. 359; Bank of Lindsborg v. Ober, 31 Kan. 599; Exchange Bank v. Sutton Bank, 78 Md. 577. A fire does not excuse it. Merchants' State Bank v. State Bank, 69 N. W. R 170. If accepted in the wrong name it is liabla Walker v. State Bank, 9 N. Y. 582. But it may act in accordance with established usage. Patriotic Bank v. Farmers' Bank, 2 Cranch C. C. 560; Warren Bank v. Suffolk Bank, 10 Cush. 582; Haddock v. Citizens' Nat Bank, 53 Iowa, 542.

17 The bank must notify all the indorsers. Steele v. Russell, 5 Neb. 211; Smedes v. Utica Bank, 20 Johns. 372; Fabens v. Mercantile Bank, 23 Pick. 330; Thompson v. State Bank, 3 Hill (S. C), 77; Bird v. La. St. Bank, 93 U. S. 96, semble; Woolen v. New York Bank, 12 Blatchf. 359; Chapman v. McCrea, 63 Ind. 360; West v. St Paul Nat. Bank, 54 Minn. 466. Contra, Bank of Mobile v. Huggins, 3 Ala. 206; United States Bank v. Goddard, Fed. Cas. No. 2937; State Bank v. Bank of Capitol, 41 Barb. 343; Phipps v. Milbury Bank, 8 Met 79.

18 This is, of course, the general rule.

19 Illinois seems to hold the astonishing doctrine that since the bank where payable has no right to pay the draft for the depositor's credit there is no necessity of making demand at that place (Haines v. McFerron, 19 Bradw. 172), unless the depositor has directed the payment

20 Dorchester Bank v. New England Bank, 1 Cush. 177.