Where paper is a total loss the measure of recovery would be the face value of the paper where there was no proof of the insolvency of the maker and of the other parties liable upon it.1 The same rule would apply where negotiable paper is lost in the course of transmission,2 but not, of course, to non-negotiable paper. The other matters bearing upon the amount of the recovery will be found treated in the preceding section.

Bank, 77 N. Y. 320, and Bamberger v. Bank of Tupelo, 15 Ky. Law R. 361, are to the effect that plaintiff must show an actual loss.

5Sahlien v. Bank of Lonoke, 90 Tenn. 221. Compare Lienau v. Dins-more, 3 Daly, 365.

6 First Nat. Bank v. Fourth Nat. Bank, 77 N. Y. 320; Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Third Nat. Bank, 49 N. E. R, 171.

7 First Nat Bank v. Fourth Nat. Bank, 77 N. Y. 320.

8 Eschelberger v. Pike, 22 La. Ann. 142.

9 West v. St Paul Nat Bank, 51 Minn. 466.

10 Steele v. Russell, 6 Neb. 211. Just when a person becomes so embarrassed as to be insolvent is a matter of some apparent doubt in Nebraska.

11 Payments made on the collection after the negligence occurred are proper evidence in mitigation of damages. Borup v. Nininger, 5 Minn. 523. But the case of Fifth Nat. Bank v. Ashworth, 123 Pa. 212, decides that where a collecting bank has accepted a cashier's check for a collection, and thus made the collection its own, payment by the drawer of the check to the holder is no defense in favor of the bank against the holder of the check suing it for negligence. The possession of collateral by the holder is mitigati ng evidence. Mott v. Havana Bank, 22 Hun, 354 But not the fact that on a foreclosure sale the holder bought in real property for less than it was worth. West v. St Paul Nat Bank, 54 Minn. 466. A judgment in another state exonerating the drawer is conclusive as to the drawer's liability when the payee sues the bank. First Nat Bank v. Fourth Nat Bank, supra.