Indorser has nothing to do. It neither enlarges nor limits his rights. It may be in-

convenient for him to receive a circuitous notice, but that is not sufficient to change

the law. I think it would be far more inconvenient to establish the doctrine now

contended for in the defence. All that is required by law is, that the holder should

give notice to the indorser, in a reasonable time after he has notice of the dishonor,

and that there should be no laches in getting that knowledge, if an agent has been

employed." S. P. Bank of the United States v. Davies, 2 Hill's Rep. 451. But the

failure of an agent to give reasonable notice to his principal, of the dishonor of a

bill of exchange, which he has taken on the sale of his property, will render him an

Insurer of the solvency of the purchaser. Harve}' V. Turner, 4 Rawle, 223. For-

resteir v. Bordman, 1 Story's C. C. Rep. 44. See also Allen v. Suydam, 17 Wend. 868,

20 Wend. 321.

The deposit of a bill in one bank to be transmitted for collection to another, is a

common usage of great public convenience. The benefit which the collecting bank

PPJXCIPAL AXD AGEXT. 155

Eights of Principal against Agent.

The most satisfactory mode of determining whether he have exer-

cised such skill is, to show by evidence whether a majority, or even

moiety, out of a given number of skilful and experienced persons,

would have acted as he has done, {x) Of whatever description his

authority may be, if he exceed it and any loss ensue, that loss will

fall on him ; (y) though if a benefit result, he will not be allowed

to share it, but must account for it to his employer, (z) However,

(x) Chapman v. Walton, 10 Bingh. 63.

(y) Catliu v. Bell, 4 Camp. 184. Barrow v. Fitzgerald, 5 Bing. K C. 201.

[z) Russell V. Palmer, 2 Wils. 325, and post.

derives from the use of the funds whilst in its custody, and the profits on exchange,

are a valuable compensation for the labor and expense to which the business subjects

It, and constitute such bank, in acting for others, an agent for reward; and of course

clothe it with the responsibilities belonging to that character. If the principal sus-

tains any damage from the failure of the bank to use due and legal diligence in the

performance of its duty, the bank will be responsible to him in an action on the case.

Bank of Washington v. Trij^lett, 1 Peters, 25. Fabens v. Mercantile Bank, 23 Pick.

330. Bank of Utica V. Smeade, 3 Cow. 662. Mechanics' Bank at Baltimore V. Mer-

chants' Bank at Boston, 6 Mete. Rep. 13. Van Wart v. Wooley, 3 Barn. & Cress. 419.

To fix the responsibility of the bank, two facts must be established; first, that the

drawer or indorser has been discharged ; and second, that this result has been owing

to the neglect or want of due skill on the part of the bank. It is a very interesting

and important question, whether a bank receiving a note for collection, and placing