It has been said that a settlement through the clearing-house upon balances presented does not become an account stated, where made in time of great public excitement, when there was no chance to investigate.1 The settlements made through the clear ing-house do not inure to the benefit of customers of the various banks. Thus, a man deposited a draft with a bank and the draft was paid to the first bank by a second bank, leaving upon the settlement for the day both banks indebted to the clearing-house. The second bank paid its balance to the clearing-house, but the first bank failed before doing so, and it failed having the proceeds of the depositor's collection. Thereupon the clearing-house collected from the different banks the total amount of credits which had been permitted to such banks on items which they had presented against the first bank which had failed. Thus, it will be seen the clearing-house certainly obtained through the payment by the second bank of the balance due from it and from the payment by all the banks of the credits allowed to them, the money from the depositor's collection. Yet it was held that the depositor of the draft could not recover from the clearing-house the amount of his draft.2 The reason of the decision can only be that the first bank had obtained the proceeds and it was immaterial how the various banks settled among themselves. The second bank was the one injured by the transaction. In yet another case a draft on one bank was indorsed for collection to a second bank, which sent it to the clearing-house in due course with other checks and drafts. The second bank failed before the collection was complete, but the clearing-house collected the draft from the first bank, the drawee. Thereupon the depositor for collection sued the drawer upon the draft and collected it, the payment to the clearing-house being no defense.3 If there is any reason for making such a decision it is not apparent from the opinion. The clearing-house demanded and obtained payment as agent for the insolvent bank. The holder of the collection had the right to reclaim the proceeds from the clearing-house, because the power of the second bank to collect was revoked by the insolvency; but the insolvency did not revoke the power of the clearing-house to proceed with the collection, and the payment by the drawee to the clearing-house was a good payment to the owner. The opinion fails to explain how the holder could sue the bank on which the check was drawn.

2 Grant v. McNutt, 33 N. Y. Supp. 62. It was held in Zenner v. Nat. Bank of Illinois, 54 111. App. 602, that the clearing agent, which had paid a check drawn upon its principal, could sue the drawer where the drawee, its principal, failed without paying the check. The opinion is not at all satisfactory.

3Stuyvesant Bank v. Nat. Mechanics' Bank, 7 Lans. 197.

4 Farmers' Bank v. Third Nat Bank, 165 Pa. 500.

1 Nat City Bank v. N. Y. Gold Exchange Bank, 101 N. Y. 595. The stamp of the clearing-house is a good transfer by receipt of payment Zenner v. National Bank, 54 I11. App. 602. A bank having paid a check through the clearing-house for another bank, the latter bank having failed without paying the check drawn on it, the bank paying was held entitled to recover from drawer. Why ? The obvious conclusion would be that the clearing agent paid the check for its principal, not as agent of the drawer. By some wild theory it might sue the payee, but where it obtained its right to sue the drawer is a mystery.

2 Crane v. Clearing-house, 2 Pa. Dist R. 509.

3 Crane v. Fourth St. Bank, 173 Pa 566. It would naturally occur to any one to inquire what the clearing-house did with the money. Could the Fourth Street Bank sue for a payment voluntarily made ? Even if it could, the policy of the decision seems exceedingly questionable. It is entirely illogical, because the holder could not sue the bank on which the check was drawn except on the theory that the payment to the clearing-house was an acceptance; but the clearing-house was a stranger, says the court