Question 181. - A sight draft on one of our customers, accepted by him payable at our office, is presented when due and marked good. When it comes in from the bank holding it next morning, we find that it is payable to " M - Hotel Co.'y," and endorsed (presumably on behalf of the hotel company) * J. S. - " but without anything to show that the signature is so intended. (1) Have we a right to send back the Item as being improperly endorsed? (2) If so, what is the position of the bank holding it? They cannot protest, as the bill is a day overdue. The bill had passed through the hands of another bank before coming into their hands. (3) Should we take any notice of the instructions of our customer not to pay it on such endorsement?

Answer. - (1) You have a right to refuse payment of the bill unless properly endorsed, and such an endorsement as you describe is not sufficient. (2) The holder to whom you return the bill need not protest it to protect himself. It is not a case where the bill is dishonoured for non-payment, but where the acceptor has in effect given the undertaking of his bank that the item will be duly paid, when presented with the proper endorsement. The holder should send it back to the bank from which it was received, and the latter is bound to return the money, if any, which it has received from the item. If the bank has received value for the item to which its title is disputed, it must establish the title, or return the money. (3) We do not think your customers have any right to object to your paying the item. If you pay on an endorsement to wliich they object, their only remedy would be to sue you, and in course of the proceedings establish the fact that you had not paid the money to the proper party. If they did this, the bank to which you paid it would have to reimburse you.

Cheque to the Ordee of "Beacock & Co.,," Endorsed "Beacock & Co., Per C. E. Beacock."

Question 132. - Will you kindly give me your opinion on the following? A local bank deposited a cheque payable to the order of Beacock & Co., endorsed Beacock & Co., per C. E. Beacock. Mr. C. E. Beacock is one of the firm of Beacock & Co., which is composed of three members. Has a member of a firm a right to endorse as above without designating his power of attorney to do so, and do you think I should accept this endorsement without requesting to have a guarantee?

Answer. - As C. E. Beacock is a partner in the firm, he does not need a power of attorney, and he should sign "Bea-cock & Co." The addition of the words "per C. E. Beacock" iS needless, but there is no obvious objection to it. You would be justified in accepting the endorsement as it stands, without requesting a guarantee, under clause (f) of the Conventions and Eules respecting endorsements adopted by the Canadian Bankers' Association, which reads as follows:"In the case of all items, whether restrictively, irregularly, or conditionally endorsed, sent through the exchanges by members of the Clearing House, the stamp of the member sending the item shall be deemed and held as guaranteeing the authenticity of all endorsements thereon, even if such guarantee be not express."