Weekly national intelligencer., 1848-10-21

capacity make the transfer, the soct
passed the Merchants Bank and paid valuable
sideraon, and had notice, actual constructive, of an,
violation Of upon which the transfer could be mpeaches
in equity, it had right sell The stock for the payment
the note for which il pledged and to make to the Pu
chasers a valid title
different rule would render the right Of every purchaser
Of stock in bank insecure liable doubt and greatly i'm
pa its value and would, moreover, seriously disturb the
Of trade and the established order Of business in rela
ton 10 this subject In manner highly injurious to the com
muny for purchasers always rely the certificate Of the
bank in which is held conclusive evidence of the
ship Most commonly the purchase made through broker
and the buyer does not know who the seller who makes
the transfer The certificate of the bank tells him that he
entitled to many shares and he pays his money upon
ceivng the certificate without further inquiry. 1t would be
unjust ard nequabe charge the stock in his hands with
any equitable ncumbrance trust however created which
was not known to him a the time he paid his money.
As respects the Commercial and Farmers Bank, the claim
Of the complainant rests upon different grounds.
BY the charter of the bank ke that of every other bank
incorporated BY law Of this Sae the stock is transferable
the bank only, and according such rules shall be
tabshed by the President and Directors II cannot there
fore be ransf rred without the supervision Of the officer de-
sgnaed for that purpose by the bank The corporation Is
thus made the cusoday Of the shares Of stock and clothed
with to establish rules sufficient to protect the rights Of
every interested from unauthorized transfers.
placed IN the hands OF the cooperation for the protection Of
dvdual interests and, like every other trustee is bound TO
execute the trust with proper diligence and care and
sponsibe for any injury sustained by its negligence mis-
conduct Upon this principle the bank held liable for
improper transfer Of its stock in the of the Farmers
and Mechanics Bank and Others Wayman and Stocket
decided in the Court of Appeals of this State the Decem
Der term, ls4 and the of Davis the Bank Of Eng
land herein before referred to- where Government
made transferable the books of the bank decided upon
the ground; and the corporation appoint the officers
before whom the transfers must be made il is responsible for
their acts and must for their negligence defaults
whenever the rights Of third person concened Hodges
the Planters Bank Of Prince Georges county, Gill and
johnson, 306 3l0)
oc ha
transferred by of the executors furnishes ground for
complaint against the bank although turns out that this
by the act Of transfer converting the property
his for executor may sell raise money the
property of the deceased in the regular of his Duty
and the party dealing with him bound to inquire into
his object nor liable for his msappicaon Of the money Such
the doctrine in the English courts and would to have
been the law OF this State previous the act Of Assembly Of
December session, S43 ch 304 and the transactions
beoe took place before that went into operation But
it is equally clear that party dealing with executor has
at the time reasonable ground for believing that he intended
to msappy tho money, is in the very transaction applying
it his private use the party dealing responsible
the persons injured The upon this subject
ous and would be tedious to refer to them particularly
They are for the most part collected and commented in
the Of Mcleod Drummond, IL Yes. l52 and Of
Fields Us. Tchufia'en John. Ch. Rep. $50.
II is very true that in the before the pledge of stock
not made the Commercial and Farmers Bank, did
loan the money TO the executor but party Is not made
liable because he pays advances money for property Of the
deceased but because by doing when he has reasonable
ground for believing that the executor to msappy it.
he knowingly assists him in committing breach of his trust
In this the rights of the stockholders and Of persons
tested in lis stock placed by law under the guardian
ship and protection Of The bank far concerned the
fe their books The stock could not be transferred could
not become the legal property of another without the
permission of the proper officers of the corporation see
Wheaton, 393 Union Bank Laird and, these officers
the time Of the transfer bad believe that the
ecuor by the act Of transfer converting this stock 10 his
in violation of his duty, Their the bank by permitting
the transfer knowingly enabled the commit breach
of his trust and upon principles Of justice and equity
fully liable if had shared in the profits of the transaction
The object of the could have been accomplished
without the cooperation of the bank in permitting the transfer
to be made on its books.
The question then is had the bank the time of the
fer actual constructive notice that the executor ansng
his trust, and applying this stock to his own
The bank by its denies that knew any thing Of
the contents OF Talbot Joness WILL of the beques TO the
complainant and there is proof Of actual notice. But
did know that this stock the property Of Talbot Jones
the time Of his death, for stood upon It's books, and
the transfer made by Samuel Jones his executor
the bank Of have known that Talbot Jones left
will and although it may have had actual notice Of the
contents Of the will yet il dealing with executor in
his character such, the law implies notice. This is the
doctrine in the English courts of chancery a Mad 1907
And the rule appears stand upon still mer ground in this
State For here it is settled, that every person has
rucve notice Of deed, for real personal property,
where Is duly registered according to law. In England the
weight OF authority perhaps TO the contrary now, Mary
land every will Of real personal property Is required TO be
recorded and if third persons bound their peril to take
notice Of registered deed when there nothing lead them
10 inquiry, the obligation must be still stronger upon who
is dealing with executor concerning the Of the de-
ceased For his character of executor Of ITSELF gives actual
notice that there will open inspection upon the public
records.
The bank, therefore, bound take notice Of the will
when this transfer proposed be made by Of the
executors. II was negligence in the bank TO anime
and il ignorant Of its contents and Of the specific be-
quest of this stock, its fault Il must be dealt
with, If had possessed actual knowledge that the stock
10 question specifically bequeahed by the testaor, and
not by the will TO be transferred, in any dis
posed Of by tho executors during the lifetime Of the
plsnan and that the duty Of the bank during that
lime pay the dividends them in trust for the complain
ant undoubtedly this stock, although thus specifically be-
queahcd, yet liable to be sod II necessary, for the pay
OF the debts Of the tesaor And If the bank did
know had reasonable ground for supposing that the
misappying the assets would be respon
ste, Notwithstanding its implied knowledge Of the will
But when the second transfer (under which the stock
finally sold made to the Merchants Bank, the ccum-
then within the knowledge Of the Commercial and
Farmers Bank abundany sufficient satisfy any
able mind that Samuel Jones using this stock for his pr
vate purposes For this transfer took place the 10th of
August 1912. The bank at that time knew that Talbot
Jones had been dead eight ycastha he died rchaDd that
the time bad long before elapsed within which the law Of Ma
lsnd requires be settled up by ad
mnissor appeared by their transfer books that
the 18th Of May preceding the stock mad been transferred
by Samuel Jones to the bank the other executor al
though he resided in town, being party the transfer
that on the 18th OF june in the year. reanscr