ich culminated in the Bank Charter
Acts of 1844 and 1845 secured to the Bank of England the absolute monopoly
of the note issue within the city of London and a 3-m. radius. Outside that
radius, and within 65 m. of the city, there is a concurrent right in banks,
consisting of six or less than six persons, established before 1844, and
issuing notes at that date; beyond the 65-m. radius the privilege may be
exercised by all banks established before 1844, and then issuing notes, who
have not since lost their right to do so by bankruptcy, abandonment of
business, or temporary suspension of issue. According to some authorities,
the effect of 20 and 21 Vict. cap. 49, sec. 12 [re-enacted Companies
Consolidation Act 1908, sec. 286 (d)] was to sanction the increase in the
constitution of any bank issuing notes outside the 3-m. and within the
65-m. radius from six to ten persons without affecting the power to issue
notes. The rule as formulated above is, however, that enunciated by Bowen
J. in _Capital and Counties Bank_ v. _Bank of England_, 1889; 61 L.T. 516.
The increase in the number of joint-stock banks and the gradual absorption
of the smaller and older concerns have had the effect of minimizing the
output of notes other than those issued by the Bank of England, and, as
exemplified by the case of _The Attorney-General_ v. _Birkbeck_, 12 Q.B.D.
57, it would seem impossible to devise any scheme by which the note-issuing
power of an absorbed bank could be continued to the new or amalgamated
body. But a bank having the right would not necessarily lose it by
absorbing other banks (_Capital and Counties Bank_ v. _Bank of England_).
Foreign banks may establish branches in Great Britain on complying with the
regulations imposed on them by the Companies Consolidation Act 1908, but
cannot apparently issue notes, even though payable abroad.

[Sidenote: Relation between banker and customer.]

_Deposit Business_.--The term "bank of deposit" gives a mistaken idea of
the real relation between banker and customer. So long ago as 1848 it was
decided by the House of Lords in _Foley_ v. _Hill_, 2 H. of L. 28, that the
real relation between banker and customer was that of debtor and creditor,
not in any sense that of trustee and _cestui que trust_, or depositee and
depositor, as had been formerly supposed and contended. The ordinary
process by which a man pays money in to his account at his banker's is in
law simply lending the money to the bank