New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-06-25


and mus, ,sIe the rsk Of the Company having done he
ssiy and having acted in conformity with ~ byawsl
1t unlike persOd who rsssse, bis eu'iness in
ssn 81 Ss ss. sh q proper
ece is acts they are done ~l1n ne scope Of tasi'
NE a. 1.-THE bylaws required eve certificate Of Ownership
te isued upon peeal resolution Of he Bosd Of Dreeio
sss, 20 is'aed IT, the case Ssna 6ds purchaser
sa ssas % os is So%sng .h ssd Ss Ssss
acquired BY the pae.ent plaintiff .,-.,.-, -,..,-
seste in question the ,cis existed which The certificate
tates the only officer who could Issue sol bentcafe
S aepset Of business 70 Issue such eertdsies to those
entitled 20 them and 70 deny them % AL others 10 Issue GER
owned. was an important part OF TIE oIday So ' % -
Of which il not unreasonable to presume he was tlo 0"S
In Issuing such certificates scng, apparently wao
the limits OF ne authority conferred him by the Company
under charter yaws rules and regulations Ia 80 ao'ns
srtins osiensby svowediy such officer Ga It's lace 70
the act Of the cooperation, aud no. Of Schuyler
The plaintiffs the certificate and osned their money
upon ,ecay it. in sooe fai'h wiho1t any SeeS
ssppee thai the eeracAte did not s.s'e me !.
f.Isehood and sDdulonty ued By the IIanst As at
, entered into RELYING upon 6deiy Those per-
ers who have parted with their money 10 ms conhdenc OF
10 n. world a. worthy Of credit and coD6dencel
IL urged that Tho defepdan himself person Of limited
r. charter confes has capacity than
Ss"s than eCo; and that the Transfer Agent b.
csrtihest~ taDseendd his powers and did what his principal
was neomIs,e a 70 00' '"' 'H1' '-' '' A
IL Obvious that the c,npsny could the proper dis
charge Of duty In the honest exercise Of m powers ~ means
Of agency competent 10 create Issue cencats de-
Glazing vie be the Of shares OF Us stock when ne
owned stock That lie duly appointed oncefs haa hs aeua
capacity TO cannot admit Of any douot ana having done
Sequence Of M Holding the Company liable will not have the
cfee fneh state Of facts as ti' es presents 20 10
diminish their nominal value. There question that toe
no troof that the plaintiffs bad any night be adzei or
treated a. siockbodersI
e seins but nominal value Of the harel II would
affect the nominal value Of the shares than loss OF the
pctent 20 diminish value Of the has through such
By S Iss seT % pr SC due w5se s
fompspy could satisfied its liability TO the planh by
rhsrss when the transfer demanded is
point which ooted but not attempted to be discussed on
A. IL wholly unnecessary determine that question in
decide whether the Judgment appealed from should be
Alarmed reversed, do not purpose 10 examine II IN tins
actin. No.. 49,. ,,.,... g.,
these (which controlled decision Of Wrg agt Wilcox 10
Wind SIS Vanderbilt sgt Rich, Turnpike Co., Comet 49,
These brought charge the principal master for tor
sou negligent acts Of the agent or BY winch direct
and immediate injury was caused 70 th person or pop Iy OF
plaintiff The sotual visible and known 10
the Injured pry the moment the wrong was done The
was charge party known at the time Of the wrong TO have
lad participation ia and presumptvey to have never
In this case immediate direct nu The
itself which he apparently authorized 20 per
one Of elss. or series Of acts precisely such in kind
q bs o5e. would Dc give es to s@ bas
Of the PRINCIPAL and in Of giving
ard property plaintiffs have lost BY giving the
s w % $ % the credit and e5nd
designed and expected they should secure and by deal
Of Business designed and expected that
the bc in Of then S IN reliance sd then
as il IurpoIted to be- the act Of the Company
Influenced in HE conduct BY any act done representation
made by the agent in the name OF or poed or sensb on
his dealings by any apparent authority Of an agent de was
injured directly and Immediately By his wrongful act AID
caution to avoid him. and keep beyond the reach Of his
The acts Of general agent will bind the principal long
he Keeps within the senerai scope Of his authority The
k long the apparently within the limits
of the authority actually conferred and third person m
poIrety such and under circumstances culaed 70
excite suipcon that agent has departed from the
nspe,os te received bind the principal aud the
ples by condng them and setting upon Them he
credit Of hem il the aSent had faithful his principal
may recover Of the latter me damages suffered dSs Ss
sss,Rs Of ,,,. mi. ,nv agent ,,D., ,,.n.
whom appoints to transact all Of his business Of particular
Schuyler wa. authorized manage superntend
r Of all .hsres Of the stock Of the Company al rsbe at
frspsfcrees IL Is tTues by has been
proved by authorized the transfer agent 10
But the answer in reply contained the
plant admits that Schuyler appointed transfer soon
aft, The Company Organized thai he charged with the
keeping books NewYork and the making Of
certificates stocks whenever any transfer thereof hoad
M by former and certificate therefor
should required by the iranseee AMI that he had the
powers which any Transfer Agent possessed ander the char
ser, bylaws and regulations Of the Company
BY charging him with the duties and by ransactpg
branch of business In this without any interruption
variation 1886 1854 the Company much bound by
Schuyler he had done the business the
manner in purtusnce Of formal resolution
by this mode Of doing Its business The Company held him out
the person worthy trusted
and Ia effect became responsible for bis fidelity and good con
auc. I'm ali matters Of the . ency.
In Fcster et al ast The Essex Bank II Mass an 51 in
which decided that where cask containing gold do
r<ted in bank keeping aud Cashier ireudulenty
position Parker Chief Justice In delivering the opinion Of The
be aske for what acts .heu Of the cashier or clerk
would be answerabs, should for which
pertain to then Official ouy Tor ~ ,h5 boots ana
te Or By fraud IN these any Ssrso9 be eSea be
corporation respect their Off that they shall bs
skntu and faithful In their they do not wa
rant their general honesty and uprghtnee-"
poaons are liable the and frauds Of their agents
h sctins the business ntrued TO them and apparently
within The limits Of authority delegated them ia the
But IL Is insisted that the plaintiffs before loaning their
money the credit Of the certificate should have to tbs
then they ought have discovered that Kyle not
the owner Of any genuine stoef
date 18th Of April 1854 transfer IN the proper book
Fyie proper form oS5 shares Of stock aud hal nqu
fo and certificate surrendered the time Of the
that the making the transfer owned that
number Of shares would the plaintiffs then have had right Of
the disclosed that the entry the transfer book
the surrendered certificate equally fraudulent the
does not ase that Kyle not appear by the
books Of the Company to be the owner Of any stock or that
stock ~ the Company standing in kye
the transfer book but that there efis stocks
sndipe in his in the OF any other person
which sphs zed transfer II inquiry AMI being
shown the transfer bOols be appeared By them % be the
of five shares OF stock transferred to him In proper form
before the his hcae issued, The plan