of Exchange Act, although the object of that section is
different.

That section does, however, import the custom of bankers into the reckoning
of a reasonable time for the presentation of a cheque, and with other
sections clears up any doubts which might have arisen on the common law as
to the right of the holder of a cheque, whether crossed or not, to employ
his banker for its collection, without imperilling his rights against prior
parties in case of dishonour. On dishonour of a cheque paid in for [v.03
p.0353] collection, the banker is bound to give notice of dishonour. Being
in the position of an agent, he may either give notice to his principal,
the customer, or to the parties liable on the bill. The usual practice of
bankers has always been to return the cheque to the customer, and sec. 49,
subs. 6 of the Bills of Exchange Act is stated to have been passed to
validate this custom. Inasmuch as it only provides for the return of the
dishonoured bill or cheque to the drawer or an endorser it appears to miss
the case of a cheque to bearer or become payable to bearer by blank
endorsement prior to the customer's.

Where a bank or a banker takes a mortgage, legal or equitable, or a
guarantee as cover for advances or overdraft, there is nothing necessarily
differentiating the position from that of any other mortgagee or guaranteed
party. It has, however, fallen to banks to evoke some leading decisions
with respect to the former class of security. In _London Joint Stock Bank_
v. _Simmons_ ([1892], A.C. 201) the House of Lords, professedly explaining
their previous decision in _Sheffield_ v. _London Joint Stock Bank_, 13
A.C. 333, determined that negotiable securities, commercial or otherwise,
may safely be taken in pledge for advances, though the person tendering
them is, from his known position, likely to be holding them merely as agent
for other persons, so long as they are taken honestly and there is nothing
tangible, outside the man's position, to arouse suspicion. So again in
_Lloyd's Bank_ v. _Cooke_ [1907], 1 K.B. 794, the bank vindicated the
important principle that the common law of estoppel still obtains with
regard to bills, notes and cheques, save where distinctly annulled or
abrogated by the Bills of Exchange Act, and that therefore a man putting
inchoate negotiable instruments into the hands of an agent for the purpose
of his raising money thereon is responsible to any one taking them bona
fide and for valu