ested, but such receipts do not
appear to have come into general use.

[Sidenote: Trustees.]

Theoretically, bankers are supposed to refuse accounts which are either
expressedly or are known to be trust accounts. In practice, however, it is
by no means uncommon to find accounts opened with a definite heading
indicating the fiduciary capacity. In other cases, circumstances exist
which affect the banker with notice of that capacity. In either case,
however, the obligation to honour the customer's cheque is the predominant
factor, and the banker is not bound or entitled to question the propriety
or object of the cheque, unless he has very clear evidence of impending
fraud (_Gray_ v. _Johnston_, L.R. 3 H. of L. 1). Even though the banker
have derived some personal benefit from the transaction, it cannot be
impeached unless the banker's conduct amount in law to his being party or
privy to the fraud, as where he has stipulated or pressed for the
settlement or reduction of an ascertained overdraft on private account,
which has been effected by cheque on the trust account (_Coleman_ v. _Bucks
& Oxon Union Bank_ [1897], 2 Ch. 243). A banker is entitled, in dealing
with trust moneys, known to be such, to insist on the authority of the
whole body of trustees, direct and not deputed, and this is probably the
safest course to adopt. Scarcely larger responsibility devolves on Joint
Stock Banks appointed custodian trustees under the Public Trustee Act 1906,
[v.03 p.0352] a remunerative position involving custody of trust funds and
securities, and making and receiving payments on behalf of the estate,
while leaving the active direction thereof in the hands of the managing
trustees.

[Sidenote: Bill-discounting.]

Other incidents of the ordinary practice of banking are the discounting of
bills, the keeping of deposit accounts, properly so called, and the making
of advances to customers, counting either by way of definite loan or
arranged overdraft. So far as the discounting of bills is concerned, there
is little to differentiate the position of the banker from that of any
ordinary bill-discounter. It has been contended, however, that the peculiar
attribute of the banker's lien entitled him to hold funds of the customer
against his liability on current discounted bills. This contention was
ultimately disposed of by _Bowen_ v. _Foreign & Colonial Gas Company_, 22
W.R. 740, where it was pointed out that the essential object of a
custom