nate between particular cheques. It
would seem a legitimate condition that a cheque should be drawn in the
ordinary recognized form, not in one raising any question or doubt as to
its validity or effect. Cheques drawn to "wages or order," "petty cash or
order," or the like, are common, and are sometimes regarded as payable to
bearer. Such payees are not, however, "fictitious or non-existent persons,"
so as to render the cheques payable to the bearer under sec. 7, subs. 3 of
the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, nor can such payees endorse. Some banks
refuse to pay such cheques, and it is conceived they are justified in so
doing. Money paid in so shortly before the presentation of the cheque that
there would not have been time to pass it through the books of the bank
would not be treated as available for drawing against. If a person have an
account at one branch of a bank, he is not entitled to draw cheques on
another branch [v.03 p.0350] where he has either no account or is
overdrawn, but the bank has, as against the customer, the right to combine
accounts at different branches and treat them as one account (_Garnet_ v.
_McEwen_, L.R. 8 Ex. 10). Funds are not available so long as a garnishee
order, founded on a judgment against the customer, is pending, since it
attaches all moneys on current account irrespective of the amount of the
judgment (_Rogers_ v. _Whiteley_).

The very questionable practice of post-dating cheques has been the source
of considerable doubt and inconvenience to bankers. The use of such
documents enables the drawer to obtain the results of a bill at a fixed
future date without the expense of a regular bill-stamp. But the Bills of
Exchange Act 1882, sec. 13, subs. 1, provides that "a bill is not invalid
by reason only that it is ante-dated or post-dated, or that it bears date
on a Sunday." The banker cannot therefore refuse to pay a cheque presented
after the apparent date of its issue on the ground that he knows it to have
been post-dated. On the other hand, he is entitled and indeed bound to
refuse payment if such a cheque is presented before the apparent date of
its issue (_Morley_ v. _Culverwell_, 7 M. & W. at p. 178). Revocation of
authority to pay a cheque must come to the banker's conscious knowledge and
be unequivocal both in terms and method of communication. He is not bound
to act on an unconfirmed telegram (_Curtice_ v. _London City & Midland
Bank_ [1908], 1 K.B. 293). The banker's authority to p