Question 140. - A depositor notifies his banker that he has issued a cheque payable to the order of John Smith, and wishes it paid only on the personal endorsement of John Smith. Is the banker bound to respect such a request, or would he be justified in accepting said cheque, tendered by payee's clerk, and endorsed "For deposit only to credit account of John Smith"?

Answer. - We think the bank is bound to act on the instructions of its customer in the case mentioned. He has a right to countermand payment, and the bank is bound to obey his orders. The instructions quoted do not go as far as that, but they are very much in the same line, and it would, we think, be held to be within the customer's rights to require the bank only to pay the cheque when it is endorsed as he specifies.

In any case the holder of the cheque the payment of which has been refused on the instructions of the drawer, would have no claims whatever against the bank. If the cheque were endorsed by the duly constituted attorney of the payee, and refused because of the customer's orders, the bank would still not be liable to anybody. The holder would, however, have a valid claim on the drawer, and (if notice of dishonour were given) on the endorser.

Irregular Endorsements - Cheque Payable to the Order op "John Bull & Son," Endorsed "The . . . Bank op Canada - Credit Account of John Bull & Son, Trust Account."

Question 141. - Cheque drawn payable to John Brown is first endorsed "Pay to the order of John Bull & Son, John Brown." Cheque is endorsed afterwards "The . . . Bank of Canada,.credit account of John Bull & Son, trust account." Is the latter endorsement sufficient to give the bank a discharge from John Bull & Son?

Answer. - We think that the endorsement should be signed "John Bull & Son," hut no liability would attach to the bank if the proceeds of the cheque did, in fact, come into the hands of the endorsees or became subject to their disposition.