er; it fixes the banker with no
fiduciary relation, and he is in no way responsible to the customer for the
use he may make of the money so paid in. And as being a mere debt, a
customer's right to recover money paid in is barred on the expiration of
six years by the Statute of Limitations, if there has been no payment
meantime on account of principal or interest, and no acknowledgment
sufficient to bar the statute (_Pott_ v. _Clegg_, 16 M. & W. 321). Such a
state of affairs, however, is hardly likely to arise, inasmuch as, in the
absence of specific appropriation, earlier drawings out are attributed to
the earlier payments in, as in the ordinary case of current accounts, and
so the items on the credit and debit side cancel each other. An apparent
exception to this system of appropriation exists in cases where a man
wrongfully pays into his own account moneys held by him in a fiduciary
capacity. In such circumstances he is presumed to have drawn out his own
moneys rather than those affected by the trust, and so long as the account
is in credit, any balance will be attributed to the trust money. As between
contending claims to the money, based on different breaches of trust, the
ordinary rule of appropriation will apply.

[Sidenote: Cheques.]

It has often been suggested that the only method of withdrawing money from
a banker is by cheque, that the presentation of a cheque is a condition
precedent to the liability of the banker to repay. This is not so; such
view being inconsistent with the cases establishing the effect of the
Statute of Limitations on money left in a banker's hands, and with the
numerous cases in which a balance at a bank has been attached as a simple
and unconditional debt by a garnishee order, as, for instance, in _Rogers_
v. _Whiteley_, 1892, A.C. 118. The banker's position with regard to cheques
is that, superadded to the relation of debtor and creditor, there is an
obligation to honour the customer's cheques provided the banker has a
sufficient and available balance in his hands for the purpose (_Foley_ v.
_Hill_). If, having such funds in his hands, the banker dishonours a
cheque, he is liable to the customer in substantial damages without proof
of actual injury having accrued (_Rolin_ v. _Steward_, 14 C.B. 595). Where
several cheques are presented simultaneously and the available balance is
insufficient to pay all, the banker should pay as many as the funds will
cover, and is not bound to discrimi