has no power to compromise 13 or release claims of the bank,14 unless the bank ratifies the act,15 or authorizes it by a course. of dealing. He cannot waive a stipulation in the bank's contract for the sale of land. His prima facie authority does not extend to any acts which are usually within the scope of the cashier's powers, such as indorsing or transferring the bank's paper.18

§ 99. Vice-president. The vice-president, as a general rule, acts simply in the place of the president. All the foregoing section is applicable to the vice-president when acting as president, and all the decisions which follow are applicable to the president as well. He has no prima facie power to borrow money for the bank,' nor to use the bank's assets as collateral to raise funds for the bank.2 He has no authority to guarantee the payment of the bank paper except as a part of a transfer, where he has been authorized to make the transfer.3

§ 100. Cashier.-The cashier is the general executive officer of the bank. He is the general agent of the bank in dealing with its customers, and the general rule resulting from his situation is that his contractual acts bind the bank, unless they are contrary to law or to what stands for the bank's charter or to public policy. He is not the agent of

13 Wheat v. Bank of Louisville, 5 S. W. R. 305. But for a peculiar case where the contrary was held, see Chem. Nat. Bank v. Kohner, 85 N. Y. 189. And see Case v. Hawkins, 53 Miss. 702; Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Templeton, 40 S. W. R. 412. 14 Olney v. Chadsey, 7 R. I. 224; Loomis v. Fay, 24 Vt. 240.

15 Winton v. Little, 94 Pa. 64.

16 Martin v. Webb, 110 U. S. 7, as to cashier.

strong, 152 U. S. 346, except by usage.

2 Stewart v. Armstrong, 56 Fed. R. 167, though bank was held because it got the money, although its cashier wrongfully gave the money away.

People's Bank v. National Bank, 101 U. S. 181, also a case of estoppel. 1 Squires v. First Nat. Bank, 59 Ill. App. 134; Wakefield Bank v. Truesdell, 55 Barb. 602. Under a

17 Chadbourne v. Stockton Sav. statutory system in Louisiana see Soc., 36 Pac. R. 127.

18 Smith v. Lawson, 18 W. Va. 212. 1 Western Nat. Bank v. Arm

Union Bank v. Bagley, 10 Rob. (La.) 45; Clinton Co. v. Kernam, 10 Rob. (La.) 176; Ried v. Powell, 10 Rob.

the board of directors, but of the bank itself. His general powers are not affected by statutes or charters which require the agreements or contracts of the bank to be executed in a certain way. In spite of such statutes he may sign and issue checks of his bank upon another bank. He has power to borrow money for the bank when the act is done in the usual course of business, but not otherwise, and he has power to certify checks upon the bank. He has power to transfer the bank's paper by indorsing it, and he has power to receive paper for collection and to do all acts proper in making the collection.8 It is one of the usual duties of the cashier to transfer stock on the books of the bank, and the bank is bound by his wrongful refusal to make a transfer,1o just as it is bound by his transfer even in a case where the bank lost its lien by the transfer and the cashier was a member of the firm to which the stock was transferred." He may extend the time of payment upon the bank's paper,12 and he may bind the bank by his statements made at the time of selling bills and notes sold by the bank. He has power to

(La.) 98; Union Bank v. Jones, 4 Austin, 21 Barb. 241. He has power La. Ann. 220. to indorse paper in payment of

2 Bissell v. First Nat. Bank, 69 Pa. bank's debts. Fleckner v. United 415.

3 See note 10 to $ 96, supra.

4 See note 10 to § 96, supra. 5 Barnes v Ontario Bank, 19 N. Y. 152, a certificate of deposit; Donnell v. Lewis Co. Sav. Bank, 80 Mo. 165. Compare Ballston Spa Bank v. Marine Bank, 16 Wis. 125; Eastern Township Bank v. Vernon Nat. Bank, 22 Fed. R. 186; Ringling v Kohn, 6 Mo. App. 333.

6 Merchants' Bank v. State Bank, 10 Wall. 604; Farmers' Bank v. Butchers' Bank, 16 N. Y. 125. Contra, Mussey v. Eagle Bank, 9 Met. 306.

7 Bank of Genessee v. Patchen Bank, 19 N. Y. 312; Wild v. Passamaquoddy Bank, 3 Mason, 505, and many other cases. See Barrick v.

States Bank, 8 Wheat. 338. But it is said he has no power to indorse to a third party except for collec tion. See Elliot v. Abbott, 12 N. H. 549; State Bank v. Farmers' Bank, 36 Barb. 332.

8 Warren v. Gilman, 17 Me. 360; Brudenbecker v. Lowell, 32 Barb. 9. 9 National Bank v. Watsontown Bank, 105 U. S. 217.

10 Case v. Citizens' Bank, 100 U. S. 446.

11 National Bank v. Watsontown Bank, 105 U. S. 217.

12 Wakefield Bank v. Truesdell, 55 Barb. 602.

13 Sturges v. Bank of Circleville, 11 Ohio St. 153; Union Nat. Bank ▾ First Nat. Bank, 45 Ohio St. 236.

employ special counsel to collect a claim for the bank.1 And if he receives checks signed in blank by a customer, who desires to go abroad and leaves the signed checks with the cashier to dispose of as she should direct, and if, after the customer has returned, he fraudulently fills up one of the checks and draws and appropriates the money obtained upon it from the bank, the bank cannot claim such money as against the customer.15 But a large number of acts have been held to be not within the scope of his general authority. He has no power to transfer judgments of the bank or to dispose of its property other than its paper; 16 he cannot buy real estate for or sell the real estate of the bank," nor may he mortgage its real estate; 18 but he may properly acknowledge an authorized deed of the bank.19 If authorized to borrow money out of the usual course of business he may do so, and the bank is liable even though he misappropriates the money.20 But he cannot give the bank's note to the president to enable that officer to pay his own debt. Such an act does not release the maker of the note." He cannot make a contract in the bank's name for transferring money for the government; he cannot compromise or settle the claims of the bank,23 or release its claims, unless au

14 Root v. Olcott, 42 Hun, 536, 115 N. Y. 635.

22

15 Daniels v. Empire City Bank, 92 Hun, 450. This seems a very close case. The decision might just as well have been that the customer constituted the cashier her agent to draw checks. Information which he received as her agent would, however, be imputable to the bank if he alone acted in cashing the check. The decision can be justified upon that ground and on no other. Compare with this case, Alpena Nat. Bank v. Greenbaum, 80 Mich. 1.

16 Holt v. Bacon, 25 Miss. 567; Asher v. Sutton, 31 Kan. 286. See Bank v. Warren, 7 Hill, 91.

24

17 Winson v. Lafayette Co. Bank, 18 Mo. App. 665.

18 Leggett v. New Jersey, etc. Co., Saxt. 541.

19 Sheehan v. Davis, 17 Ohio St. 571.

20 Chemical Nat. Bank v. Armstrong, 56 Fed. R. 392, 16 U. S. App. 465.

21 Rhodes v. Webb, 24 Minn. 292. 22 United States v. City Bank, 21 How. 356. Nor can he bind the bank by agreeing to pay usurious interest. Hanson v. Heard, 38 Atl. R. 788.

23 Bank of Commerce v. Hart, 37 Neb. 197.

24 Thompson v. McKee, 5 Dak. 172; Ecker v. First Nat. Bank, 59 Md.

thorized so to do by the rules and usages of the business,25 or in payment of the bank's claim, when he may do all acts required to complete the payment; 26 he has no power to make purchases for the bank not in the line of acquiring bankable securities; 27 he has no power to assign the bank's property unless it be in the usual course of business.28 It was held in one case that he had no power to pledge the assets of the bank to secure an antecedent debt,29 and in another that he had no power to make acceptances at all;30 certainly he has no power to make accommodation acceptances, except of course to a bona fide holder; he has no general power to receive special deposit of papers." It was held in one case that he had no power to make an answer to a garnishment.33 He cannot bind the bank by signing its name to an indemnity bond given upon an execution in the bank's favor; nor has he power to bind his bank to defend a suit for a correspondent, where the correspondent is sued for negligence in collecting. But this prima facie power or lack of power is capable of variation by the course of dealing in a bank, as we shall hereafter see.

31

34

291; Cocheco Nat. Bank v. Harkel, 51 N. H. 116; Hodge v. First Nat. Bank, 22 Grat. 51.

25 Ryan v. Dunlap, 17 Ill. 40. 26 Matthews v. Massachusetts Nat. Bank, Fed. Cas. No. 9286.

27 Lionberger v. Maxer, 12 Mo. App. 575; North Star Co. v. Stebbins, 2 S. Dak. 74. Contra, Crystal Plate Glass Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 6 Mont. 303, semble. The purchase was for a third party, and hence the case is wrong because the cashier had no such power.

28 Hartford Bank v. Barry, 17 Mass. 94. See Lamb v. Cecil, 25 W. Va. 288.

35

31 Farmers' Bank v. Troy Bank, 1 Doug. 457.

32 Lloyd v. West Branch Bank, 15 Pa. 172.

33 Branch Bank v. Poe, 1 Ala. 396. But his affidavit for a capias is proper on behalf of the bank. Wachsmuth v. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 96 Mich. 426.

34 Watson v. Bennett, 12 Barb. 196. 35 First Nat. Bank v. Manufacturers' Nat. Bank, 10 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 233. But if the cashier had made the agreement as part of the consideration for receiving the draft for collection, there seems to be no reason why such an act should not be

29 State of Tennessee v. Davis, 50 within the scope of his general au

How. Pr. 447.

30 Pendleton v. Bank of Kentucky,

1 T. B. Mon. 171, under a statute.

thority, provided the engagement
were otherwise enforceable.
36 See § 105, infra.

2

§ 101. Treasurer of savings bank and other general agents. The treasurer of a savings association is an officer with general powers analogous to the cashier's powers in a bank. A suit instituted on behalf of the savings association by its treasurer is presumed to be authorized.' He may authorize the attorney of the corporation to levy execution upon land and to purchase the same for the bank, and in pursuance thereof to bring a writ of entry. A manager of a branch bank has power to bind the bank as an accommodation indorser upon a draft payable at a branch bank. In fact the manager of a branch bank must necessarily represent for that branch all the corporate power. It would be difficult to find a corporate officer with as much authority, for as to the branch he must to the general public be a board of directors, a president and a cashier. An agent with a general authority binds the bank by his transfer as a matter of course. An authority given to an agent carries with it the powers necessary or fairly adapted to carrying out the authority. But a clerk acting as cashier in place of an absent cashier has authority to indorse the bank's paper only for collection."

§ 102. Tellers and book-keepers.- In banks where one teller acts at both the receiving and the paying counter, there can be no discrimination between the paying and the receiving teller, but in many banks the two functions are in separate officers, and in some banks these officers each have

1 Bangor Sav. Bank v. Wallace, 87 Me. 28. See also § 232, post.

2 Bristol Co. Sav. Bank v. Keavy, 128 Mass. 298.

7 Potter v. Merchants' Bank, 28 N. Y. 641. This is one of the decisions resulting from the mistaken New York doctrine that a deposit

3 Canadian Bank v. Coumbe, 47 for credit passes complete title to Mich. 358.

4 Such officers are the managers, for instance, of Wells, Fargo & Co., at Salt Lake City, or New York or London.

5 Smith v. Lawson, 18 W. Va. 212. 6 Burrill v. Nahant Bank, 2 Met.

the bank. This ruling can be correct only as to one who knew a clerk was temporarily acting. A person who comes into a bank and finds a man acting as cashier has the right to assume he has the powers of cashier.