The first ease was National Park Bank v. Bank, 114 N. Y. 28, 20 N. E. 632, 11 Am. St. Rep. 612, and this, it was said at a conven tion of bankers, "proved a revelation to many of us, and pointed out the great dan ger which lurked hi checks and other paper having restrictive indorsements," and the second ease, National City Bank of Brook lyn v. Westcott, 118 N. Y. 468, 23 N. E. 900, 16 Am. St. Rep. 771, was said "to have open ed the eyes of banks, heretofore unacquaint ed with the decision (of the Seaboard Bank Case), to the real status of liability in case of restrictive indorsement ;" address of S. G. Nelson, 13 Bkg. L. J. 445. The same doc trine was followed in other eases, so that it is fully established in New York and some other states and in the federal circuit court ; Wells, Fargo & Co. v. U. S., 45 Fed. 337 ; U. S. v. Bank, 70 Fed. 232 ; Mechanics' Bank v. Packing Co., 70 Mo. 643 ; Germania Bank of Minneapolis v. Boutell, 60 Minn. 189, 62 N. W. 327, 27 L. R. A. 635, 51 Am. St. Rep. 519 ; Northwestern Nat. Bank v. Bank, 107 Mo. 402, 17 S. W. 982, 15 L. R. A. 102 ; and the basic principle of these decisions was already ap proved by the United States supreme court, which held that "the words 'for collection' evidently had a meaning. That meaning was intended to limit the effect which would have been given to the indorsement without them, and warned the party that, contrary to the purpose of a general or blank indorsement, this was not intended to transfer the owner ship of the note or its proceeds." Sweeney v. Easter, 1 Wall. (U. S.) 166, 173, 17 L. Ed. 681; which was followed in a case of in dorsement "for collection" ; Commercial Nat. Bank v. Armstrong, 148 U. S. 50, 13 Sup. Ct. 533, 37 L. Ed. 363 ; and as to an indorsement "for account," it was said, "It does not pur Rort to transfer, the title of the paper, or the ownership of the money when received ;" White v. Bank, 102 U. S. 658, 26 L. Ed. 250. In one state the contrary view has been tak en and the bank of deposit of a draft with a forged indorsement, although a mere "in dorsee for collection," was held liable to re fund to its correspondent bank which had paid the money ; Rhodes v. Jenkins, 18 Colo. 49, 31 Pac. 491, 36 Am. St. Rep. 263. See Onondaga County Say. Bank v. U. S., 64 Fed. 703, 12 C. C. A. 407.
The result of the decisions cited was the general adoption of a rule by most of the clearing-house associations, substantially like that of New York, excluding, from the exchanges, paper having a qualified or re stricted indorsement, such as "for collection" or "for account of," unless the same was guaranteed. In Chicago such paper was ab solutely excluded. The result has been to make the question, what is a restrictive in dorsement, one of vital importance and the judicial opinion is not uniform. The follow
ing have been held to be restrictive: "for collection ;" Sweeny v. Easter, 1 Wall. (U. S.) 166, 173, 17 L. Ed. 681; People's Bank of Baltimore v. Keech, 26 Md. 521, 90 Am. Dec. 118 ; "for account ;" White v. Bank, 102 U. S. 658, 26 L. Ed. 250 ; "for my use ;" Wil son v. Holmes, 5 Mass. 543, 4 Am. Dec. 75 ; "credit my account ;" Lee v. Bank, 1 Bond. 387, Fed. Cas. No. 8,186 ; "Pay to P. or or der only ;" Power v. Finnie, 4 Call (Va.) 411; "for deposit ;" Beal v. Somerville, 50 Fed. 647, 1 C. C. A. 598, 17 L. R. A. 291 (contra, National Commercial Bank v. Miller, 77 Ala. 168, 54 Am. Rep. 50); "for deposit to the credit of ;" Freeman v. Bank, 87 Ga. 45, 13 S. E. 160 ; contra (by a divided court), Ditch v. Bank, 79 Md. 192, 29 Atl. 72, 138, 23 L. R. A. 164, 47 Am. St. Rep. 375 ; but while the presumption is that it is restrictive, the bank may show by extrinsic evidence that it was not so, either by reason of a special agree ment ; Beal v. Somerville, 50 Fed. 647, 1 C. C. A. 598, 17 L. R. A. 291; or because the proceeds were passed to the depositor's cred it and subject to check before collection ; Fourth Nat. Bank of Cincinnati v. Mayer, 89 Ga. 108, 14 S. E. 891.
Where a bank to which a forged check was sent for collection credited the person send ing it with the amount, without actually re miffing the money, it could, on discovering the forgery, charge back the amount; Bir mingham Nat. Bank v. Bradley, 103 Ala. 109, 15 South. 440, 49 Am. St. Rep. 17. See ar ticles critically reviewing the cases, in the latter of which the conclusion is reached that an indorsement for deposit is restrictive ; 13 Banking L. J. 361, 429 ; and see also Norton, Bills & N. 123 ; Daniel, Neg. Instr. §§ 636, 637, 698.
The indorsement or assignment of an in strument by a corporation or by an infant passes the property therein, notwithstanding that from want of capacity the corporation or infant may incur no liability thereon. Neg. Instr. Act § 138.
Where the holder of an instrument payable to his order transfers it for value without indorsing it, the transfer vests in the trans feree such title as the transferor had there in, and the transferee acquired, in addition, the right to have the indorsement of the transferor. Neg. Instr. Act § 123.
See GUARANTY ; BILLS OF EXCHANGE; PROM ISSORY NOTES ; NEGOTIABILITY.
Criminal Law. An entry.made upon the back of a writ or warrant.
When a warrant for the arrest of a per son charged with a crime has been issued by a justice of the peace of one county, which is to be executed in another county, it is necessary, in some states, that it should be indorsed by a justice of the county where it is to be executed: this indorsement is called backing.