nker
paying a crossed cheque otherwise than in accordance with the crossing, but
if he do so he is liable to the true owner for any loss suffered by him in
consequence of such payment (sec. 79), and is probably unable to charge his
customer with the amount. A banker paying a crossed cheque in accordance
with its ostensible tenor obtains protection under sec. 80 and the proviso
to sec. 79. Questions have arisen as to the bearing of the crossed cheques
sections when a crossed cheque drawn on one branch of a bank is paid in for
collection by a customer at another branch; but the transaction is so
obviously a legitimate and necessary one that either by the collecting
branch may be regarded as a separate bank for this purpose, or sec. 79 may
be ignored as inapplicable (_Gordon_ v. _London City & Midland Bank_
[1902], 1 K.B. 242 C.A.).

The collection of crossed cheques for a customer being virtually incumbent
on a banker, qualified immunity is accorded him in so doing by sec. 82, a
final exposition of which was given by the House of Lords in _London City &
Midland Bank_ v. _Gordon_ (1903), A.C. 240. To come within its provisions,
the banker must fulfil the following conditions. He must receive the cheque
from, and the money for, a customer, _i.e._ a person with whom he has
definite and existing business relations (see _Great Western Ry. Co._ v.
_London & County Bank_ [1901], A.C. 414). He must take the cheque already
crossed generally or specially to himself. His own crossing under sec. 77
is absolutely inefficacious in this connexion. He must take the cheque and
receive the money in good faith and without negligence. Negligence in this
relation is the omission to exercise due care in the interest of the true
owner, not necessarily the customer. To avoid this disqualification of
negligence, the banker must see that the endorsements, where necessary, are
ostensibly correct; he must satisfy himself of the authority where an
endorsement is per procuration; he must not take for private account a
cheque which on its face indicates that the holder is in possession of it
as agent, or in an official capacity, or for partnership purposes
(_Hannan's Lake View Central Ld._ v. _Armstrong & Co._, 16 Times L.R. 236;
_Bevan_ v. _National Bank_, 23 Times L.R. 65); he must not take a cheque
marked "account payee" for an account other than that [v.03 p.0351]
indicated (_Bevan_ v. _National Bank_). It is further demonstrated by the
Gordon case