SCRUTTON , L.J. The executors of Harry Turner ( deceased ) brought an action against the District Bank , Ltd. , where the executors' account was kept , to recover 5,000 in respect of a cheque dated Dec .sx 4 , 1929 , which they alleged to be wrong-fully debited to their account .sx WRIGHT , J. , gave judgment in their favour and the bank appeals .sx Many points were raised on the appeal .sx One was as to the effect of a description of payee , which may be typified as " Pay A per B , " on the liability of the bank as to the endorsement required , and the bank's duty of inquiry .sx The executors first brought an action against the Westminster Bank , the collecting bank , which FINLAY , J. , decided against the executors on grounds appearing in his judgment , to which I shall have to refer hereafter .sx The executors did not appeal against this decision .sx We were told that , the estate being largely devised in favour of charities , the Charity Commissioners had to be consulted , and the Attorney-General's department directed that no appeal should be brought , as an action could be brought against the present defendants , the paying bank .sx The immediate facts are few and not in dispute .sx The executors had as their solicitors a firm of Cumberbirch and Potts , the firm and its senior partner , Mr. Cumberbirch , being of the highest local repute .sx Mr. Cumberbirch and his clerk from time to time drew forms of cheque for the executors to sign .sx All these cheques had been drawn in favour of a named payee with no addition following his name .sx Some of them had the blank following the name of the payee filled with a line so as to prevent addition .sx The great majority of the cheques had no such line .sx In December , 1929 , the executors had money to invest , and determined to invest 5,000 in war loan through well-known brokers , John Prust & Co. Cumberbirch filled in a form of cheque , " Pay John Prust & Co. , " leaving a blank after the name of this payee .sx He obtained the signatures of three executors on Dec .sx 4 and of the fourth on Dec .sx 5 .sx He then fraudulently inserted after the name of the payee the addition " per Cumberbirch and Potts .sx " This addition was , of course , in the same writing and undistinguishable from the description of the payee .sx I am satisfied there was no " apparent alteration " of the cheque as originally signed .sx The two things suggested as pointing to alteration were the full stop after the name of the original payee , and a slight slope in the writing of the addition , both facts , in .sx my opinion , too minute to be noticed on reasonable inspection .sx Cumberbirch had at the Westminster Bank a private account , and an account of a company of which he was chairman , the Palatine Industrial Finance Co. , Ltd. , which on Dec .sx 5 had a small credit balance of about 49 .sx On the afternoon of Dec .sx 5 , Cumberbirch brought to the Westminster Bank the altered cheque and a paying-in slip .sx The cheque was endorsed " Cumberbirch and Potts , " no reference being made to John Prust & Co. The paying-in slip was , " Credit account of Palatine Industrial Finance Co. , Ltd. Current account .sx " Cheques were drawn on his account on December 5 and 6 for about 565 , and on Dec .sx 7 the plaintiffs' cheque , having been cleared , was paid by the District Bank to the Westminster Bank .sx Were it not that FINLAY , J. , has held that the Westminster Bank were not negligent in making no inquiries as to why a cheque for a large amount apparently destined for John Prust & Co. through the medium of Cumberbirch and Potts was paid into the private account , not of that firm , but of a company of which Cumberbirch was chairman , I should be clearly of opinion that it could not be argued that the Westminster Bank were not negligent :sx see Slingsby v. Westminster Bank ( No .sx 2 ) ( 4) .sx I am of opinion , following the principles laid down in Underwood , Ltd. v. Bank of Liverpool and Martins ( 5 ) , Lloyd's Bank v. Chartered Bank of India , Australia and China ( 6 ) , and the recent decision of this court in Reckitt v. Midland Bank ( 7 ) , now under appeal to the House of Lords , that the Westminster Bank were negligent , and were not , therefore , holders in due course because they allowed Cumber-birch , and the Palatine company , to draw against the cheque before it was cleared .sx The cheque was presented to the District Bank with its endorsement " Cumberbirch and Potts " and paid .sx Cumberbirch presently bolted ; this and other frauds were discovered and this action started in the circumstances already stated .sx Cumber-birch also paid a dividend warrant signed by one of the executors into his private account at the Westminster Bank on Jan .sx 16 , 1930 .sx This did lead to inquiries by the bank , but only inquiries of Cumberbirch who told a quite untrue story that it was the repayment of money that the executor owed him .sx Again , FINLAY , J. , found there was no negligence on the part of the bank , and again I should entirely disagree with him :sx see Slingsby and others v. Westminster Bank ( 8) .sx A quantity of banking evidence was called about the form " Pay A per B , " endorsed " B , " and the banking witnesses said the endorsement was quite proper .sx It appears that such a form is commonly used when a company at the request of its shareholder pays a dividend by cheque to the shareholder's bank .sx The form of such a cheque is not seen by the shareholder , and the bank is , of course , above suspicion .sx It was said also to be used where a solicitor was acting in a property transaction ; in payment of rates ; in connection with underwriters ; and in taking up bills of lading .sx I personally have some experience with the two latter classes of transaction , and I can only say that I cannot remember ever having seen such a description of a payee before , and I gather that the two other members of the court share my experience .sx I am sure the form is not one generally used except in payment of dividends to banks .sx One of the banking witnesses , Mr. Hyde , said :sx " I do not think I have seen a cheque made out in this manner while I was at the counter .sx " It is not suggested that the executors authorised this form , and its only importance is on the point , what endorsement such a description of payee , " A , per B , " requires .sx On this all the banking witnesses said that an endorsement " B " was sufficient ; one of them said " A " would be " a nominal payee , " but was unable to explain what he meant by that expression .sx When asked whether , if B endorsed over to C , C would be able to sue A , they appeared unable to answer .sx They did agree that the form showed that it was intended that the amount of the cheque was intended to get to A , but through the medium of B. The witnesses were unanimous in their opinion , and when confronted with the opinions published by the Institute of Bankers in their official handbook , all they said was that those answers were wrong .sx I myself should take the view taken by SIR JAMES PAGET ( PAGET'S LAW OF BANKING , 4th Edn .sx at p. 251 ) that the proper form of endorsement should be " A , per pro B , " meaning " I , B , sign A's name by his procuration or authority .sx " Section 91 of the Bills of Exchange Act , 1882 , appears to me to show that the signature of any relevant party to the bill , such as a payee or endorsee , should be on the bill , though it may be placed there by an agent who has A's authority , and should state his authority , if he wishes to escape personal liability to subsequent endorsees as distinct from liability on warranty .sx This point was not pleaded in the first case before FINLAY , J. , and he does not deal with it .sx I should add that FINLAY , J. , does dismiss the earlier action on the ground stated in these terms :sx " It was submitted by counsel for the defendant bank that the action , however put , was entirely misconceived .sx Whatever may be the rights , so it was argued , of the plaintiffs against their own bank , who have debited them , they can have no right to recover against the defendants not in conversion of the cheque because the cheque was , by reason of the alteration , a mere valueless piece of paper ; not in conversion of 5,000 because there was no conversion of any money of the plaintiffs ; not for money had and received because the money was not the money of the plaintiffs .sx I have come to the conclusion that this submission is right and ought to prevail .sx It seems clear that the document , when it came into the hands of the defendant bank , was not a valid cheque at all .sx It had been avoided by the material alteration made in it .sx This being so , it seems to me that no action can be brought upon it against the defendants .sx They have not dealt either with a cheque or the money of the plaintiffs , and on this short ground I think this action must fail " :sx Slingsby and others v. Westminster Bank ( No .sx 2 ) ( 4 ) ( 1931 2 K.B. at p. 585) .sx I cannot understand this .sx There are , of course , difficulties as to how in law one should deal with money claimed by a customer from a bank because that bank has collected it from the customer's bank on a document which does not authorise such collection , but I thought that all those difficulties had been settled by the decision in Morison v. London County and Westminster Bank ( 9 ) , followed by this court in Underwood , Ltd. v. Bank of Liverpool and Martins ( 5 ) , in Lloyds Bank v. Chartered Bank of India , Australia and China ( 6 ) , and in Reckitt v. Midland Bank , Ltd. ( 7 ) , now under appeal to the House of Lords .sx Slingsby and others v. Westminster Bank ( No .sx 2 ) ( 4 ) was , in my opinion , wrongly decided and should not be followed by any court in preference to these decisions of the Court of Appeal .sx But the legal result on these facts begins earlier than endorsment .sx This cheque , having been signed by the executors in a form which gave Cumberbirch no rights , was fraudulently altered by Cumberbirch before it was issued , and , it was not disputed , altered in a material particular by the addition of the words " per Cumber-birch and Potts .sx " The cheque was thereby avoided under s. 64 of the Bills of Exchange Act , 1882 .sx A holder in due course might not be affected by an alteration not apparent , such as this alteration .sx But counsel for the District Bank did not contend that the Westminster Bank were holders in due course , and I am clear they were not .sx They could not , therefore , justifiably claim on the District Bank , and the cheque when presented to the District Bank was invalid , avoided a worthless bit of paper , which the District Bank was under no duty to pay .sx This in-validity comes before any question of endorsement .sx Secondly , I am of opinion , as already stated , that , if valid , the cheque was not properly endorsed .sx The endorsement should have been " John Prust & Co. per pro Cumberbirch and Potts .sx " Any attempt to prove a custom failed ; the Bankers' Institute opinions show that the custom was not universal ; there was no satisfactory evidence that the custom was known to business men outside the banking world , or that it was usual except in the case of dividend warrants paid to banks .sx The defendant bank endeavoured to argue that the wording of s. 79 of the Act , " or to have been added to or altered otherwise than as authorised by this Act , " protected them .sx The wording is clumsy , but , in my opinion , the section only refers to additions to or alterations of the crossing .sx The wording of s. 78 , and the later words of s. 79 , make this clear .sx I agree with the view on this point expressed .sx by Sir JAMES PAGET at p. 225 of his work on the LAW OF BANKING ( 4th ) .sx