The deposit of paper with a banker for collection creates a relation which has generally been defined as that of principal and agent. But an accurate use of language requires something other than such a description. The banker is certainly an agent in so far as he is authorized to receive payment. But he is certainly not an agent to collect the paper, because there are numerous steps which the principal might take in collecting which the bank cannot take. All paper deposited for collection necessarily requires an indorsement either general or for collection. In either case the legal right to the possession of the paper passes to the bank.1 The relation is properly called a bailment, because while it does not contemplate the receiving back of the particular thing, yet, as in cases of pledges of negotiable paper, it may be collected and yet remain a bailment as to the proceeds.2 The relation is not that of trustee and cestui que trust, because the remedy is at law, not solely in equity, where a breach of trust must be redressed. It is a trifle singular that in our day the old confusion which existed between agency, trust and bailment should reappear. We are told in that work which represents such a marvelous amount of industry and acumen, Pollock and Maitland's History of English Law, that originally there was no distinction made between agency, trust and bailment. See pages 226, 227, 231, of volume 2. The relation being that of bailment, it has an important bearing upon the question of the collecting bank's liability for the acts of its agents. This contract of bailment has annexed to it certain duties created by the usages of commerce which have become recognized as rules of law. The law defines the duties of the collecting bank, and it need not be proven what the contract was, even where it is alleged.3 Yet if any specific agreement was made by or direction given to the bank, it must be observed,4 if the bank accepts the collection. The analogy of this bailment and that of the common carrier is complete. The quasi-contract created by custom may be modified by express agreement. And it is believed that a bank could no more contract against its own negligence than a common carrier could. But it has been said, where a note is left with a bank without any direction whatever, the bank may either discount the note or hold it until maturity and collect it.5 Where the collection is on the particular bank wherein it is placed for collection, and the request is to remit by mail, the relation created is that of depositor and banker.6 The consideration for the acceptance of the duty is the advantage which the bank receives from the rate of exchange,7 or, where there is no charge, the use of the money;8 but in truth no consideration is needed beyond the acceptance, as every court and lawyer ought to have known.

1 Evansville Bank v. German Am. Nat. Bank, 155 U. S. 556. It is conceived that this statement means no more than that the bailee has title against every one except the bailor.

2 Beal v. Somerville, 50 Fed. R. 649, 5 U. a App. 14