14 to Sec. 363, post requires that the antecedent negligence of the depositor should be considered immaterial.

14 Leather Manuf. Bank v. Morgan, 117 U. S. 96; Janin v. London Bank, 92 Cal. 14; Dana v. Nat. Bank of Republic, 132 Mass. 156; Weinstein v. National Bank, 69 Tex. 38; Hardy v. Chesapeake Bank, 51 Md. 562; Wind v. Fifth Nat. Bank, 39 Mo. App. 72; First Nat. Bank v. Allen, 100 Ala. 476; Am. Nat. Bank v. Bushey,45 Mich. 135. But this rule is strenuously denied in New York. Welsh v. Germ. Am. Bank, 73 N. Y. 424; Frank v. Chemical Bank, 84 N. Y. 209; Shipman v. State Bank, 126 N. Y. 318 (the last was a very hard case).

15 Hardy v. Chesapeake Bank, 51 Md. 562.

16 Dana v. National Bank, 132 Mass. 156.

17First Nat Bank v. Allen, 100 Ala. 476. This rule seems strange, but it is sound. See note 18 to Sec. 111, ante. Contra, Weisser v. Denison, 10 N. Y. 68.

18Janin v. London Bank, 92 Cal. 14.

19 Brixen v. Deseret Nat. Bank, 5 Utah, 504

20 Van Wert Nat Bank v. First Nat. Bank, 6 Ohio Cir. Ct R. 130.

21 Brixen v. Deseret Nat Bank, 5 Utah, 504.

22 Crawford v. West Side Bank, 100 N. Y. 50.

23 Espy v. Bank of Cincinnati, 18 WalL 605; Corn Exchange Bank v. Nassau Bank, 91 N. Y. 74. Contra,

Merchants' Bank v. Marine Bank, 3 Gill, 96. But where the payment is made upon an indorsement of a fictitious name assumed by the person intended, there is no forgery; it is otherwise if the indorser personates a real person. First Nat Bank v. Farmers' Bank, 76 N. W. R. 430. See note 5 to Sec. 204, post.

24 Meads v. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 25 N. Y. 143; Irving Bank v. Weth-erald, 36 N. Y. 335.

25 See note 32 to this section. This statement in the text must be understood with the qualification that the bank itself has done nothing to mislead the person to whom it paid or gave its certification.

26 See note 12 to this section.

27 Brixen v. Deseret Nat. Bank, 5 Utah, 504. But the bank must discover forged indorsements as against its depositor. Bank of British North America v. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 91 N. Y. 106; Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Importers' & Traders' Bank, 119 N. Y. 195. The fact that the last indorsement was good is immaterial. Atlanta Nat. Bank v. Burke, 81 Ga. 597. The bank need not regard the handwriting of the body of the check. Crain v. Hor-ton, 5 Wash. 479.

28 United States v. National Ex. Bank, 45 Fed. R. 163. But if the bank's officers could have detected the forgery before payment, the depositor's negligence is immaterial. Bank v. Morgan, 117 U. S. 112. As to what is a reasonable time, see Cooke v. United States, 91 U. S. 389, 402.

29 Armstrong v. Pomeroy Nat.

Bank, 46 Ohio St. 512. Compare Burnet Co. v. German Nat. Bank, 4 Ohio Dec. 290; De Feriet v. Bank of America, 23 La. Ann. 310; Hardy v. Chesapeake Bank, 51 Md. 562 ;. Mackintosh v. Eliot Bank, 123 Mass. 393; Dana v. National Bank of Republic, 132 Mass. 146; Robb v. Pennsylvania Co., 186 Pa. 456.

30 Welch v. German-American Bank, 73 N. Y. 494. Compare Goetz v. Bank, 119 U. S. 560. It is difficult to see how the antecedent conduct of the drawer is material, unless it amounts to a representation of a fact or a concealment of the truth. Otherwise it has no causal connection with the bank's neglect. See the last note and National Bank v. Nolting, 94 Va. 263. The depositor ought always to be permitted to assume that the bank will pay only on a genuine signature. See Dodge v Bank, 30 Ohio St. 1, 20 id. 234.

31 Clews v. Bank of New York, 89 N. Y. 418; Parke v. Roser, 67 lnd. 500; First Nat. Bank v. Northwest--em Nat. Bank, 152 III 296 (as to the certificate being a warranty only of the signature of the drawer and the presence of funds); Marine Nat. Bank v. National City Bank, 59 N. Y. 67; Espy v. Cincinnati Bank, 18 Wall. 605.

32 Clews v. Bank of New York, 89 N. Y. 418. Custom is not admissible to charge the bank. Security Bank v. Nat Bank of Republic, 67 N. Y. 45a

33 See Hagan v. Bowery Nat. Bank, 64 Barb. 197.

34 Clews v. Bank of New York, 105 N. Y. 398,114 N. Y. 70. Teller who says his own forged certificate is good binds the bank. Continental Bank v. Commercial Bank, 50 N. Y. 575.

35 Abrams v. Union Nat. Bank, 31 La. Ann. 61.

36 Clews v. Bank of New York, 105 N. Y. 398, 114 N. Y. 70.

37 Merchants' Bank v. Exchange Bank, 16 La. 457.

38 Redington v. Woods, 45 CaL 406; Parke v. Roser, 67 lnd. 500; Espy v. Cincinnati Bank, 18 Wall. 605; Corn Ex. Bank v. Nassau Bank, 91 N. Y. 74. See note 23, ante.

39 National Bank of Commerce v. National Mechanics' Banking Ass'n, 55 N. Y. 211, seems to qualify the right upon the holder not having suffered injury. But the bank, it is said, must have paid without negligence. Redington v. Woods, 45 Cal. 406.

40 Helwege v. Hibernia Nat. Bank, 28 La. Ann. 520; Godchaux v. Union Nat. Bank, 28 La. Ann. 516. This is the rule as to the drawer of the check.

41 See note 46 to this section.

42 See note 8 to this section.

43 See note 38 to this section.

44 See note 38 to this section. Merchants' Bank v. Exchange Bank, 16 La. 457. This rule as to an uncertified check must be governed by the same qualification as to the bank's exercise of due care in payment that is made in Redington v. Woods, 45 Cal. 406. This qualification holds as between banks. See note 1 to next section.

45 See note 8 to this section.

46 Crawford v. West Side Bank, 100 N. Y. 50.