[1] Banking Law—-Collection op Note—Authority op Cashier.— A bank cashier by virtue of bis official position has authority to receive payment of a promissory note -due the bank.

[2] Id.—Payment op Note by -Check—Order op Cashier—Fraudulent Misappropriation—Liability op Bank.—Where the cashier of a bank in Ms official capacity demanded payment of a note, and requested that the check given in payment should be made payable to the order of himself instead of to the bank, and he applied the check to his own overdrawn account, the bank must suffer from such fraudulent misappropriation, since the form of payment was immaterial in view of the cashier’s authority.

[3] Id.—-Conduct op -Cashier—Demand for Payment op Note—Insufficient Circumstances to Excite Suspicion op Maker.—The maker of a note payable to a bank was not -put on notice that the cashier was trying to defraud the maker or the bank, by the cashier personally demanding payment of the note twenty-four hours after its execution at the office of the maker in a distant city, and- requesting that the check given in payment be made out to the cashier personally, where it was represented th-at the loan was objected to by the bank examiner, and it was known by the maker that the company which had received the money for which the note was given h-ad borrowed up to its limit from the bank.

[4] Id.—Action on Note — Instruction — Payment op Money—Presumption.—In an action by a bank to recover on a note, which the defendant claimed had been paid by a check payable to plaintiff’s cashier, an instruction that the presumption of law is that money paid by one person to -another was due the latter was erroneous where the real issue was whether the cheek was given to the plaintiff by the delivery of the same to its cashier, or to the cashier personally for some other purpose.

[5] Id.—Manner op Drawing Check—Instruction.—In such action, an instruction that the drawing of the check was not in the ordinary course of business between the defendant and the bank was erroneous, as being an instruction on a question of fact.

[6] Id.—Direction as to Drawing op Check—-Suspicion op Maker— Instruction.—In such action, an instruction that cashier’s direction to have the check made payable to himself was sufficient notice to put defendant on inquiry as to why the cheek should thus be made payable, was objectionable, in view of an instruction that defendant was entitled to rely upon the integrity of the cashier.

[7] Id.—Evidence — Want op Examination by Bank Examiner — Improper Testimony.—Testimony of the directors of the bank in such action, to the effect that no examination was made or was to be made by the bank examiner, should not have been admitted, since the effect of the evidence was merely to prove that the statements made by the cashier to the defendant at the time he demanded payment of the note were false, while the defendant had the right to rely upon such representations by plaintiff’s agent.

[8] Id. — Collection op Note—Lack op Express Authority op Cashier—Improper Testimony.—Testimony of the directors of the bank to the effect that they had not authorized the cashier to demand payment of the note should not have been admitted in such action, since that authority resulted from his official position.

[9] Id.—Payment op Note to Agent—Nonproduction op Note— Bisk op Maker—When Bule Inapplicable.—The rule that where the payee of a promissory note pays an agent who does not produce the note, the payment is at the risk of the maker, and if such person were not, in fact, entitled to receive payment, the maker must bear the loss, has no application to payment to the cashier of a bank, for he has authority to collect notes due to the bank.