of the person presenting the cheque for payment may
amount to an undertaking by the banker to hold the money for his benefit
(_In re Beaumont_ [1902], 1 Ch. p. 895).

A banker either paying or collecting money on a cheque to which the person
tendering it for payment or collection has no title or a defective title is
_prima facie_ liable to the true owner for conversion or money had and
received, notwithstanding he acted in perfect good faith and derived no
benefit from the operation. Payment of an open cheque, payable to bearer
either originally or by endorsement, is, however, in all cases a good
payment and discharge (_Charles_ v. _Blackwell_, 2 C.P.D. at p. 158).
Limited protection in other cases has been extended by legislation to the
banker with regard to both payment and collection of cheques, usually on
the principle of counterbalancing some particular risk imposed on him by
enactments primarily designed to safeguard the public.

By sec. 19 of the Stamp Act 1853, the banker paying a draft or order
payable to order on demand, drawn upon him, was relieved from liability in
the event of the endorsement having been forged or unauthorized. This
enactment was not repealed by the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, and, in
_London City & Midland Bank_ v. _Gordon_ (1903), A.C. 240, was held to
cover the case of drafts drawn by a branch of a bank on its head office.
Sec. 60 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 extends like protection to the
banker in the case of cheques, the definition of which therein as "bills
drawn on a banker payable on demand" debars drafts of the above-mentioned
description. Such definition, involving the unconditional character of the
instrument, also precludes from the protection of this section the
documents now frequently issued by corporations and others, which direct
bankers to make payments on a specific attached receipt being duly signed
(_London City & Midland Bank_ v. _Gordon_). Sec. 17 of the Revenue Act
1883, however, applies to these documents the crossed cheques sections of
the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 (see _Bavius, Jr., & Sims_ v. _London &
South-Western Bank_ [1900], 1 Q.B. 270), while denying them the position of
negotiable instruments, and a banker paying one of them crossed, in
accordance with the crossing and in the absence of any indication of its
having been transferred, could probably claim immunity under sec. 80. The
Bills of Exchange Act 1882 contains no direct prohibition against a ba