and it does not, in terms, say that the writing may be signed by anybody on his behalf—that is, by an agent; and, no doubt, there are other sections where signature is spoken of, and it must be the signature of the person himself, or there may be cases where it is signed by the agent, and provisions are made to that effect in the statute. "But now I take the document which I have before me, and compare it with the statute. The facts are these. [His Lordship then stated the facts as to the writing of the memorandum by the nurse, and continued.] That memorandum was, no doubt, meant to be evidence of his intention. The document is signed by the nurse, and it was an authority to those concerned, if the note had been found, to destroy it in his lifetime. "But is that an absolute and unconditional renunciation in writing of the testator's rights on the note? Mr. Romer's argument (to put it shortly) was this, that it is final because it is stated it is Mr. George's dying wish, and that it is immediate because the note was to be destroyed as soon as found. But the real question, I think, is this is the direction to destroy the note as soon as found an absolute and unconditional renunciation of the rights on the note? I put the proposition in that way; for I think it is the fairest way to state it in favour of the plaintiff. I am now assuming that this, is a writing by the testator-an assumption that I am making in favour of the plaintiff. "The pertinent question is, could not the testator, after this paper had been signed by the nurse, have gone to the bank, if he recovered, where he supposed the note to be, to get it, or if it was found afterwards and brought to the testator, could he not say, 'I have changed my mind?' I think he could. I think I am bound in point of law to say that he could. "Having examined the case with all the care that I think could be given to it, I am unable to come to the conclusion that this was an absolute and unconditional renunciation in writing such as is required by the statute." Question 560: Why was not the writing by the nurse in this case considered a renunciation ? PART V ADDED CHAPTERS ON BANKS AND SURETYSHIP Chapter 65. Banks and Banking. CHAPTER 65 BANKS AND BANKING §§ 520-547. (Nego. Instru., Secs. 129-156.) (Note: In the cases on Negotiable Instruments just preceding are many cases that would properly fall under the heading "Banks and Banking," particularly cases concerning checks. In the present chapter it would be interesting to add cases upon the general subject of banks and banking, but space does not permit a general treatment. For a general elementary discussion reference is made to the text book on Negotiable Instruments, Chapter 18. The duty of the bank in respect to deposits for collection; the liabilities and rights of the bank in reference to forged and altered paper, including the question of the degree of care in writing checks, the failure of the bank to honor checks drawn by depositors on sufficient accounts, the negotiability of checks, the liability of the bank on special forms of indorsement-these and other subjects are covered by cases in other parts of this book. Below is a case and a note appended thereto upon the duty of the depositor to examine cancelled vouchers, and report errors.) Case 561. Hammerschlag Mfg. Co. v. Importers' & Traders' Nat. Bank, 262 Federal, 266. ROGERS, CIRCUIT JUDGE (after stating the facts): "The question which this case presents relates to the right of a bank which has paid raised checks to escape liability for repayment of the amounts so paid by establishing the negligence of the depositor in not examining the passbook and vouchers returned to him by the bank, and in not reporting to the bank without unreasonable delay the errors discovered or which might have been discovered. "In the present case there was no forgery of signatures. It is admitted that the signatures were all genuine. The forgeries consisted in raising the amounts for which the checks were originally drawn, and the alterations were all made by the plaintiff's confidential bookkeeper. He had exclusive charge of the preparation of the checks for signatures, and exclusive charge of the presentation of the checks for signatures. After the signatures were affixed, the bookkeeper would raise the amount of the check and present it to the bank for payment. The alteration of checks by him began in August, 1913, and in June of that year the plaintiff had written the following letter and given it to the bookkeeper, William H. Hooper, who presented it to the paying teller of the bank: "New York, June 6, 1913. "Importers' & Traders' National Bank, Broadway and Murray Street, City Gentlemen: Please accept this letter as authority for payment to our Mr. W. H. Hooper of checks presented by him, drawn to the order of bearer-signature below. Respectfully yours, Dic. J.D.G/K. (Signed) Hammerschlag Mfg. Co. (Signed) William H. Hooper." "Each one of the altered checks was altered by Hooper, presented by him, and to him the money on all of them was paid. The amount of the check as originally drawn was erased by an ink eradicator preparation, and as the raised amount was in the handwriting of the one party who wrote the original check there was nothing in the appearance of the check to challenge attention. The protectograph was not used, with a possible exception of one or two of the checks, until after the alteration in amount was made. No book containing checks and stubs was used. The checks were drawn on voucher forms, which were padded, and the amounts were entered in the book as the book of original entry. "(1) A depositor who sends his passbook to be written up, and receives it back with his paid checks as vouchers, is under an obligation to the bank to examine and verify his passbook and vouchers, and report to the bank the errors disclosed. "In Leather Manufacturers' Bank v. Morgan, 117 U. S. 96, 6 Sup. Ct. 657, 29 L. Ed. 811 (1886), the rule is laid down that the depositor is bound personally or by an authorized agent and with due diligence to examine the passbook and vouchers, and to report to the bank without unreasonable delay any errors that may be discovered; and if he fails to do so, and the bank is misled to its prejudice, he cannot afterwards dispute the correctness of the balance shown by the passbook. It is also held that, if the duty of the examination is delegated by the depositor to the clerk guilty of the forgeries, he does not so discharge his duty to the bank as to relieve himself from loss. "In Critten v. Chemical National Bank, 171 N. Y. 219, 63 N. E. 969, 57 L. R. A. 529 (1902), the rule is laid down that a bank depositor owes to the bank the duty of exercising reasonable care to verify the returned vouchers by the record kept by him of the checks he has issued, for the purpose of detecting forgeries and alterations; and in that case the court held the bank depositor chargeable with the knowledge of the fraudulent alteration of checks possessed by his clerk to whom he intrusted the examination of vouchers, and with his negli gence or failure in the verification of the accounts, although the clerk happened to be the one who made the alterations, where the comparison of checks with the |