cannot be lost, mislaid, stolen, and passed away in commerce without the consent of the owner.

So also of a book credit, or book debt, in a tradesman's books. If I buy goods from a tradesman on credit, that credit has performed exactly the same part in CIRCULATING the goods as money: because we have expressly defined Circulation to be the sale of goods for money or credit, and the credit has been equally the medium of circulation, or sale, whether it is recorded on paper or not; but it is not CURRENCY, because it cannot be dropped in the streets, stolen, and transferred to some one else by manual delivery.

If, then, we are compelled to adopt this barbarism, and employ the word CURRENCY as a philosophical term, it must most manifestly be extended to include bank credits or deposits, book credits, and verbal credits of all descriptions.

And this is exactly what commercial law does. It treats any form of credit payable by a banker on demand, as money or cash, no matter whether it be a bank note, a cheque, or a bank credit. They are all in the eye of the law equally payment: that is, none of them are legal money: that is, a debtor cannot compel his creditor to take them in payment of a debt: but if he chooses to do so without objection, they all stand on exactly the same footing as payment. The case of bank notes is so well known that we need not cite any authorities. With regard to cheques, Lord Mansfield said, in Grant v. Vaughan, that a cheque is the same thing as a bank note. In Pearce v. Davis (1 Moo. & Rob.), PATTESON, J., said that a cheque "operates as payment until it has been presented and refused." So in Jones v. Arthur (8 Dowl., 442), COLERIDGE, J., held that tender of payment by cheque is good unless objected to on that account. Also in Bevan v. Hill (3 Camp., 381), where a person having accepted a cheque in payment, and lost it, and the banker failed, having funds to meet the cheque, Lord Ellenborough held that the cheque was payment.

And the very same doctrine is true regarding a Bank Credit or Deposit. In Gillard v. Wise (5 B. & C. 134), HOLROYD, J., said "The defendants, instead of sending a clerk to receive cash for the notes, sent them to the persons who ought to have paid them; but they sent them, not for the purpose of being paid in money, but of being placed to their credit in account.

When that credit was given, the legal effect was the same as if the notes had been paid to them in money."

Thus a Right of Action against a banker payable on demand is, in commercial circles, considered as money, or cash, whether it be in the form of a bank note, a cheque, or a bank credit: and though, of course, in the strict legal sense, only the two former can be CURRENCY, yet, in a philosophical sense, if we are compelled to adopt the word, all three forms must be CURRENCY.

7. And so in other points of Law Bank Notes and Bank Credits are held to be included in the term money, or cash. In the case of Lord Aylesbury's will, Lord Hardwicke held that bank notes passed under the title of cash: and in Miller v. Race Lord Mansfield said, "bank notes pass by a will which bequeaths all the testator's money or cash."

But the very same doctrine is held regarding a Bank Credit, or deposit, or a balance on a banking account. Thus in Vaisey v. Reynolds (5 Russ., 12), the testator bequeathed "to his wife all his book debts, monies in hand; and to his executors all his monies out at interest or mortgage, notes of hand, or any security whatsoever." Lord LYNDHURST said-" The testator has referred to two descriptions of monies, monies in hand, and monies out at interest on mortgage, notes of hand, and other securities. The balance in the banker's hands, though it carries interest, was not out at interest or security, and it was in the same order and disposition of the testator, as if it had been deposited in his own drawer. It must be inferred that the testator meant to pass it by one of the two descriptions which he has used. In no sense was it money on security, and in a reasonable sense it was money in hand, and passed therefore to the wife."

So in Taylor v. Taylor (1 Jurist., 401) where the testator bequeathed all his ready money, Lord LANGDALE said-" It is true that in strict legal language, what is called money deposited at a banker's is nothing more than a debt, and cannot be called ready money, but in the ordinary language of mankind money at a banker's is called ready money, and we must construe a will according to the ordinary language of mankind."

Again in Parker v. Marchant (1 Y. & C., 290), BRUCE, V. C.,

said—“ Undoubtedly an ordinary balance in a banker's hands is, in a sense, a debt due from him-certainly he may be sued for it as a debt. But it may be equally true that in a sense it is ready money. The term debt,' however technically correct, is not colloquially, or familiarly applied to a balance at a banking house. No man talks of his banker in that character being indebted to him. Men speaking of such a subject say that they have so much at their banker's, or so much in their banker's hands, a mode of expression indicating virtual possession, rather than that right to which the law applies the term chose-in-action. Agreeing that the term (ready money) is applicable to money in the purse, or the house, I cannot agree that it is confined to money so placed. Money paid into a banking house, in the ordinary mode, is so paid for the purpose of being not safe merely, but ready as well as safe." And, consequently, the V. C. held that a Bank Credit, or deposit passed under the term "ready money." And this opinion was confirmed on appeal (1 Phil., 356) by Lord LYNDHURST-“Nobody can doubt that in the ordinary use of language, money at a banker's would be considered as ready money.' Everybody speaks of the sum which he has at his banker's as money: 'my money at my banker's' is a usual mode of expression. And if it is money at the banker's, it is emphatically ready money, because it is placed there for the purpose of being ready when occasion requires: it is received upon the understanding that it shall be so ready. If a man goes to his banker, the money is counted out to him on the table. If he sends an order for the money, it is counted out to his servant, or the person in whose favour that order is made. I consider, therefore, that it is strictly 'ready money' according to the ordinary acceptation of those terms among mankind."

So again in Manning v. Purcell (2 Sm. & Giff., 284) the question was whether a balance on a current account, and a balance on a deposit account payable on demand, passed under the word moneys in a will, STUART, V. C., said "The question as to the next subject of gift which the plaintiffs deny to be included in the gift of moneys,' is as to the balances of the testator at his bankers'. The testator seems to have had balances upon a current account, and balances upon a deposit account. Now, the balance upon the current account certainly passed. It is also my

opinion that the money, the evidence of which was the deposit notes, also passed under the description of moneys. It has been maintained in argument, that the deposit notes are the vouchers given by the bankers with whom the deposits were made as security for money, and they have been likened to the case of money secured by a bond. It is said that the balance due is simply a debt, and the deposit note is evidence of the debt, just as a bond, which shews a debt, and binds the obligor to the payment of it. But moneys deposited by a testator with his bankers, on a deposit account, the balance carrying interest, is so much money at the disposal of the testator, and is as readily accessible by him as moneys in an ordinary current account. The fact that interest is allowed upon these deposits, is a reason for the depositor more reluctantly drawing upon his deposit account; but in point of fact, there is no distinction at all shewn to me upon the custom of the bankers. The bankers have been examined in this case, and the habit is so notorious on this, that it would not require evidence to shew that where a banker holds money for which he gives a deposit note, it is just as accessible to his customer as if it were held on a current account.

"If a customer having a balance of £10,000 at his bankers' wants £1,000, he must take a piece of paper and deliver it to the bankers before the bankers would pay him the money which they hold for him. Now, with respect to the deposit money, the customer, if he wants that money, or any part of it, must bring the deposit receipt instead of an ordinary cheque; but that does not make it less accessible to him than if the bankers held it liable to be paid on cheques. If the slightest doubt were cast upon the accessibility of a depositor's money which a banker holds on deposit receipts, it would soon put an end to the account altogether.

66

"My decision proceeds upon this, that as to the deposit note, as much as to the current account, the relation of banker and customer exists; that the bankers holding money of a customer, whether on a deposit account or a current account, unless there is some express contract to take it out of the ordinary case of deposit, holds it as money, and as money, so readily accessible to the customer on the relation of banker and customer, that it is held to pass under the description of money generally."

8. The importance and the practical bearing of these investiIn modern times private gations and decisions are evident. bankers discontinued issuing notes, and merely created Credits in their customers' favour to be drawn against by Cheques. These Credits are in banking language termed Deposits. Now many persons seeing a material Bank Note, which is only a Right recorded on paper, are willing to admit that a Bank Note is cash. But, from the want of a little reflection, they feel a difficulty with regard to what they see as Deposits. They admit that a Bank Note is an "Issue," and "Currency," and "Circulation," but they fail to see that a Bank Credit is exactly in the same sense equally an "Issue," "Currency," and " Circulation.”

When a banker, in exchange for money, or in exchange or the purchase of a Bill of Exchange, gives his Notes to his customer, he creates and ISSUES a Right of Action against himself, which the customer may transfer to any one else. But also when a banker in exchange for money, or in exchange for a Bill of Exchange, creates a Credit in his books in his customer's favour, he equally creates and "ISSUES" a Right of Action against himself : and by delivering a cheque book to his customer he thereby engages to pay the Credit to any one else to whom his customer may transfer it. Either form of Credit, therefore, is equally the ISSUE of a Right of Action to the customer. He has exactly the same right to demand payment of his Credit from the banker, and exactly the same right to transfer it to any one else, whether it be by Note or by Cheque.

Unreflecting persons see only so many figures in a book: they are startled at hearing them called Wealth: but, in fact, these figures are only the evidence of so many transferable rights of action in the persons of the bankers' creditors. These Rights are just as much "issued" and in "circulation" as if they were Notes. They are equally liabilities to pay on demand. No doubt it is usual in bank returns to distinguish between Notes and Credits; but suppose they were not so distinguished, but merely called liabilities, would not every one see that they stand on exactly the same footing? Would any one then make any difference between them?

Thus these Bank Credits, or Deposits, are a mass of Property, just like so much corn or timber; they are Pecunia, Bona, Res, Merx; they are now, though, of course, legally only debts for all