The figures of the above table show an important advance in every way upon those of 1908. Of course, the chief feature is the very large increase in the clearings at New York, where the total is again well above twenty thousand millions sterling. This figure has only once previously been reached, namely, in 1906, when the total was £20,935,166,000, so that the present total of £20,717,748,000 falls below the highest by but a very small amount. At Chicago and Boston the clearings also show substantial increases, and in each case the amount is beyond any previous record. At Philadelphia although the total of £1,404,351,000 shows an increase of 18.3 per cent. over the figures of 1908, it is below the record of 1906, when the clearings amounted to £1,537,000,000, and also somewhat below the figures for 1907.

Taking the cities showing clearings of over 100 millions sterling each, and leaving out of account the clearings at New York, the twenty cities at the top of our table have an aggregate of clearings of £10,045,849,000 against £8,627,484,000 at the same cities in 1908, an increase of 16.4 per cent. With the exception of Minneapolis, where a very small decrease is shown of 2.7 per cent., all the members of this group have improved their figures. In fact, throughout the whole table the experience has been almost invariably in the way of improvement, there being only six places that show any decrease. Of these two only are of any extent, or in places of any importance, namely, Minneapolis and Galveston. The remaining four cases of decrease amount together only to £816,000.

Taking the returns geographically the results may be tabulated as follows:

In the table given at the close of 1908 there were only twentysix cases of increase, against eighty-eight cases of decrease.

The following are the most noticeable cases of improvement in 1909 over the figures of the previous year:

Of the above it may be noted that both Kansas City and Fort Worth have had a succession of increases for several years past, and in 1908 showed the largest increases of the year.

Some part of the increase in total year by year is caused by the inclusion of fresh Clearing Houses, but, of course, these are for the most part comparatively small institutions. Besides those now included in the table there are fifty-one other institutions, whose names, with number of members, are given here for the sake of record. As several of them have only three members each, and one has only two members, it is evident that their yearly transactions must be very small, and probably the "insti"tutions" are, in some cases, no more than the arrangements that exist between bankers in most of our towns for the exchange of drafts.

The names of the non-reporting Clearing Houses are as follows:

The clearings reported are divided geographically among the following groups:

The clearings at New York far outweigh all the rest of the returns in the table, as they constitute 62.5 per cent. of the whole, and the increase at New York of £4,862,572,000 constitutes 73.4 per cent. of the total increase, so that in every way the metropolitan city forms the chief feature of the table. Of course, this is in a large measure due to the fact that Stock Exchange transactions, which form so large a proportion of the whole, are more entirely centred in New York than are any other class of business operations. This is clearly seen from the fact, among others, that the New York bank clearings of 1909 have only been exceeded by those of one previous year, namely, 1906, in which year the recorded transactions in stocks and shares also reached a maximum that has not since been touched; whilst, in 1905, when the bank clearings came next in amount to those of last year, the Stock Exchange figures were very large, and were only exceeded by those of 1906. On the other hand, it appears that besides the increase in stock transactions, there was in the past year a notable improvement in all classes of general business.

Taking the clearings at New York by quarters throughout the year they compare as follows with the three previous years:

D

From the above it appears that the last two quarters compare very favourably with the same quarters in any of the previous years quoted, not excepting the record year 1906. The proportion which the clearings bore to those of the previous year, both in New York and in the rest of the country, is shown,

quarter by quarter, in the following table:

Of course, the ratio which the increase bears in each quarter depends quite as much upon the figures of the previous year, as upon those of the year under review.

We conclude, as usual, with a table giving the total clearings for the past ten years:

LEGAL DECISIONS AFFECTING BANKERS.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. CHANCERY DIVISION.

(Before MR. JUSTICE WARRINGTON.)

The Times, February 14th, 1910.

RE A. BOYNTON (LIMITED) - HOFFMAN v. A. BOYNTON (LIMITED).

Priority between Debenture-holders' Costs, Receiver's
Remuneration, and Bank's Charge.

In this case, which was heard last Saturday, Mr. Justice Warrington delivered the following considered judgment this morning. The facts and arguments appear from the judgment.

Mr. Clauson represented the plaintiff; and Mr. Whinney Lloyds Bank. The company did not appear.

MR. JUSTICE WARRINGTON. - The question for decision arises on the further consideration of a debenture-holders' action. Money has by leave of the Court been borrowed by the receiver on the security of a first charge on the company's assets. The proceedings have not resulted in realising enough to pay in full the plaintiff's costs of the action, the receiver's remuneration, and the amount due to those who lent the money. The plaintiffs say their costs and the receiver's remuneration ought to be paid first and the balance only of the fund paid to the lenders in part discharge of their loan. The lenders say that the only charges which should come before them are the costs of realisation and the remuneration of the receiver for the short period during which he is under an order of the Court to be treated as their receiver.

FACTS.

The company was engaged in the business of an hotelkeeper and occupied a leasehold house, Nos. 16 and 17, St. James Place. The writ in the action was issued on April 3rd, 1908, and on April 14th, 1908, judgment was pronounced and Mr. Lionel Henry Lemon was appointed receiver and manager. He carried on the business for rather less than a year and made some profits by trading. Ultimately, however, he became unable to pay the rent, the lessors by leave of the Court distrained and seized the stock, furniture, etc., and on March 5th, 1909, leave was given to the receiver to give up possession. There is a fund in Court