« PreviousContinue »
the dangers arising from the decision in Smith's case was this—it introduced the “not negotiable crossing, the adoption of which would prevent property passing where a cheque was stolen and then negotiated for value to an innocent holder. Thus a payment to a holder of such a cheque so stolen, made in contravention of the crossing, could never be a payment to the “true owner," ownership remaining in the drawer or the original payee, or whoever might lawfully have become entitled to the cheque, and such a person could thus, as true owner, fix with liability the bank making such irregular payment.
But if a cheque is crossed without these words, it is difficult to see how the provisions of the Crossed Cheques Act, re-enacted in s. 79 of the present Act, affect the decision in Smith v. Union Bank, so far as it proceeded on the ground that the plaintiff was no longer the owner of the cheque.
ERIC R. WATSON.