劃平行線之禁轉支票為日常生活票據流通中常見之一種支票類型。該種支票是否可再為委任取款背書？我國學說及實務上多採肯定見解。惟承認此種支票可再為委任取款背書，是否會與禁轉票據之效力相違背？不無討論空間存在。最高法院95年台上字第2223號判決雖肯認劃平行線之禁轉支票可再為委任取款背書，但仍認為須符合中央銀行業務局七十三年台央業字第一八○○號、七十四年台央業字第一一四五號函釋之要件，否則付款行對其付款則屬票據法第144條準用第71條第1項對背書不連續之支票付款，付款行應自負其責。然而，本案上訴人（發票人）據此請求被上訴人（付款行）負侵權行為損害賠償責任。關於此問題，於否認劃平行線之禁轉支票可再為委任取款背書見解下，付款行對該纸支票付款，亦有可能發生。惟該請求是否合理？則屬另一問題。本文認為，付款行對背書不連續之支票付款，且執票人又非實質上票據權利人時，依票據法第71條第1項規定之法律效果為自負其責，乃須向真正票據權利人再度付款，並非負侵權行為損害賠償責任。且付款行對背書不連續之支票付款並未造成發票人有何權利或利益受損可言。本文最後對於最高法院95年台上字第2223號判決評析實務對上述兩個爭點之見解。

The Non-negotiable Crossed Check is one common kind of checks in the instruments negotiation in daily life. Can this kind of check be used as the Endorsement by Procuration again? The answer is mostly positive in theory and practice. And whether it conflicts against the effect of the non-negotiable instruments by admitting the said check that it can be used as the Endorsement by Procuration again? There is still the room for discussion. Though 2006 Tai Shang Zi No.2223 Judgment of the Supreme Court admits that the Non-negotiable Crossed Instrument can be used as the Endorsement by Procuration again, it still recognizes that it shall comply with the important parts of the interpretation of 1984 Tai Yang Ye Zi No.1800 of the Business Bureau of Central Bank, and 1985 Tai Yang Ye Zi No. 1145. Otherwise, the payment paid by the paying bank shall be deemed as the payment by checks with uncontinuous endorsements which is stipulated in Article 144 mutatis mutandis Clause 1 of Article 71 of Law of Instruments and the paying bank shall bear the liability arising therefrom. However, the Appellor (the Drawer) appeals the Appellee (the Paying Bank) for damage compensation against the infringement acts. As for this problem, under the opinion of denying the Non-negotiable Crossed Instrument can be used as the Endorsement by Procuration again, it is possible for the paying bank to pay for that check. Then whether that appeal is reasonable belongs to another problem. This paper believes that when people who hold the instrument are not the practical obligee of the instruments, the paying bank shall pay for the checks with uncontinuous endorsements, and in order to be responsible for its own fault, it shall pay to the practical obligee of the instruments again in accordance with Clause 1 of Article 71 of Law of Instruments. And the paying bank shall not be responsible for the damage compensation of the infringement acts. And the check payment with uncontinuous endorsement by the paying bank has not caused any loss of rights and interests to the drawer. Finally, this paper analyzes the comments on the said two arguments in practice arising from 2006 Tai Shang Zi No.2223 Judgment of the Supreme Court.