The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1874-09-14
From the New York journal Of Commerce.
Identification.

We have heretofore discussed at consId-
erable length the subject of identifying the
payce of negotiable securities, but IL stu
seems as far as ever from being settled on
satisfa cory basis. Our table is covered with
complaints from offended check-holders and
replies from bank officers who are indignant
that their motives are not appreciated.
biost of the difficulty appears to grow out OF
a misunderstanding OF the true theory OF
Identification, and the relative obligation OF
the parties. A check is drawn upon the
bank to the order of John Smith. The bank,
before it can legally charge that check to the
account Of the drawer must pay, or assume
to pay, the money to the veritable John
Smith. who is its proper recipient.
Feeling burdened with this responsibility,
the bank teller, who is called upon to dis
burse the funds, too often assumes that the
psyee is the only one who can be called upon
to take any trouble in the matter OF identlfi-
cation, and is likely to insist, not only with
manifest indifference, but often with great
insolence, that he shall prove himself be-
youd doubt to be the true holder Of the
check.
But there is no statute requiring such
Identification on the presentation OF check.
Any stranger having check upon the Dans
to bis order may present it land demand pay
ment. If the money is not at once forth"
coming, he may find notary and instruct
the latter to protestit. he may go back upon
the drawer and collect the damages of him.
and in certain contingencies be or the drawer
may collect these costs of the bank. Or
course in the courts the holder must identity
himself by proper evidence as the rignttlli
custodian of the check, only as all other
I'm "a r0pl
but q legal demand Of payment does not re-
uuire anything beyond the presentation OF
the document, duly endorsed.
In England, at first, all checks upon a
bank were payable to bearer. When the
system of drawing to order was introduced.
the difficulty was Immediately felt. An
English gentleman having check to his
order endorsed it, and presented it to be.
cashed. If the bank did not know him that
was ts misfortune, and not his fault. Some
.gcod.natured persons would assist the bank
teller in establishing their identity, but others
would haughtily resent any intimatlon that
they were not we'll enough known. Parlia-
ment was called upon to relieve the banks OF
4 responsibility for which they had no sutt-
ciept legal remedy, and an act was passed
making the payment to the bearer of any
endorsed by the payee, a good payment. All
that protects the owner of check drawn to
his order in Great Britain, supposiDg that
be shall lose it in the street or it is stolen
from him, is the fact that the finder OR the
thief must forge the endorsement before he
can present it for payment, and may thus be
detected. The bank, in paying it to who
ever presents it with the right name on the
back, no matter by whom written, is pro-
tected by the act, and, as far as it is concern
ed, the endorsement, even if it is plainly
forged, cannot be questioned.
This is the origin of the change Of sight
bills of exchange to what is called "short
sight," or three days from sight. These bills
thus escape subsection to the act which ap-
plies alone to sight checks and drafts.
A worthy bank officer Of this city, in
letter just at hand, takes exception to Our
statement that it is not legal defence, if pay
ment is refused, that the bank is unac-
quainted with the presenter. This is true;
and while the bank loses the money if it pays
to the wrong man, there is no process by
| which it can lawfully compel the holder to
bring witnesses to the bank counter to prove
his identity.
| Custom and public opinion in this country
justify the drawee in asking stranger who
| presents check to assist the bank in identi-
flying him. The point We wish to make is
| that the bank is the party really bound to
make the Identification, and the request to
the payee should therefore be made in such
terms of courtesy as knowledge of this
fact justiies and requires.
Instead Of throwing all the burden upon
the holder in language which argues that he
| is suspected, and that the drawee is perfectly
| Indifferent whether he makes his claim good
or not, the request for Identification should
be couched in terms which imply that a
favor is asked, the bank being bound to
know him before payment, and requiring
bis assistance to effect that object. No one
was ever offended by such an approach,
whereas the reply too often made at bank
counters, even to our most respectable clti'
zens, is sufficient to justify keen resentment