Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1858-11-11
oFFIOIAE.

Opinions Of the suPrerae Colrs of the state
% Eennessees Delivered IA Knoxville, al
September Term, 1885,
NeiGsr rs. Bank Of Knoxville.
This was an action Of deSt, brought by NeffFer as
holder Of paper supporting o be a check or DRAFT
for $1,000 drawn By the Bank Of Knoxville on II
W. Conner, Of Charleston, South Carolina PAYABLE
to D. Bronson. Tie check was made p.yabls
thirty days from date and acceptance was waived,
by an endorsement on its face No funds we're placed
10 the bands Of the drawer 60 meet the payment Of
The check, aud It protested for non payment.
Under The instructions Of the Court, the jury found
a verdict for the del endant upon which the Court
rendered judgment. The ''Bank Of KaoEv-le" 10
one Of the Free Banks organized under the act Of
1872. At the tie of the check sued on NJ W.
Williams was President and John L. Moses was
Cashier Of said Bank. The check was drawn and
signed by the President, in his official character
This fact constitutes the principal grounds Of de
fence-its being assumed that the President bad no
authority to draw check, and consequently the
act Is not binding on the Bank. The charter of the
Bank the act Of 1872 is silent upon this subject
and there is no bylaw or regulation Of the Bank
assigning the duty Of drawing hills checks to any
parucular officer Of the Bank Tie objection 10
the power Of the President to bind the Bank there
fore, rests upon the general principle that in he
absence OF any positive regulation to the contrary
the Cashier is the executive officer, through EhOm
ell the monied operations Of the Bank are to be
conducted IL is admitted 70 be true, as a general
proposition, that where the charter CT an ineOrpo
ration prescribes the particular mode which its
contracts shall be made, authenticated that
mode must be pursued for corporations like natu al
persons, IN general only bound by the acts and
contracts OF their agents within the scope Of their
authority. And all restrictions upon the power Of
the agents officers contained in the charter every
one dealing with the corporation Is bound 70 notice
But If no definite rule is 10 be found either in the
charter or BY laws Of the institution, in regard to
the manner and form in which its acts and contracts
shall be evidenced, then, it seems, general usage,
and the course of business of similar institutions is
10 govern The officers will be presumed TO have
been vested with the customary authority; and their
acts, within the scope OF such usage practice, and
course Of business Win be binding Oh the institu-
tiOn, 10 favor Of third persons, having no knowi-
edge to the contrary. There eau be 10 doubt, how
ever, that Notwithstanding Bank, or other eorpos
ration, may be authorized 10 contract in pre-
scribsd mode either by its Oh srter or by laws or
general u-age, it msY depart from the prescribed
mode, and render itself liable upon contracts exc
Cuted, or authenticated, in dlfereut mede. Thus
although the President Of a Bank be not author
lied, by virtue Of his Office, 10 draw checks f the
moneys of the Bank it is clear thst the company
may empower him, as its agent. to do 81, aud jhat
in such case, the Bank will be bour d by h act
Corporations in this respecr, stand upOa the same
fOoi ing with natural PEI sOBs, and slise bound
by the acts Of its agent, beyond The Limits Of his
authority, If dOUe by their previous sub equeut
assent or express or imp lied direction The proof
in this record, establishes that, by the general
usage Of Banks, in Tennessee, the CASHIER is the
executive officer Of the Bank and the proper person
to draw and sign checks Bet thai, 10 toe absence
of the cashier, the practice is FOR the President
draw and sign checks, &c, without any special au
lhOrty for that pur ose And the proof further es.
tabIishes that the practice in this particular Bank,
from its first Orag0izaioE, had been for The Presi-
dent TO draw checks Ia the absence Of the cashier
1t is admitted thai the cashier absent ct the
time the check sued on was drawn; but it is said
that during his absence, another person had been
temporarily appointed 10 act sscashier in his stead
This objection is not prov By anything in the re-
cord before u.s. but ii II were established, it would
not vary the question 1t is sufficient to vest the
President with authority to do the act, that the
regular, permanent officer, known as cashier, is alb
sent from the Bank the time the official act is re-
positive prohibition upon the exercise Of such
power by the President in the charter Of inc5rpor-
aion, It is difficult to perceive any very sensible
reason why such power mght rot as well be e1er-
oised by any officer the other, so far as re-
CARDS the binding effect Of the act upon The Bank.
The objection is highly technical one, and il vii
not do 70 permit corporations, especially Banks, 20
escape tbeir just liabilities such uusubsianlial
aud fimsy preteTts Upon lhi point, his honor, the
Circuit Judge, erred in his Instructions TO the jury
The decision Of the foregoing question disposes Of
The objection 10 the notice Of protest; and, the
case must 60 back for another trial, fOTbear 90
notice the question OF fraud made the trial 1t
will be LEFT open, without any iniimation Of the
facts
Judgment reversed. MOKINEET