Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1868-01-12

by the bank az its general sgent in the
negotiation, management, and disposal of
them. Pftma tdeie, therefore, from the
very nature OF his Office, and the objects
and purposes of the bank, he must be
deemed TO have authority to transfer and
indorse negotiable securities held By the
bank, for its use and in its behalf, and no
special authority for this purpose is neces-
sary TO be proved These are some Of the
general and necessary dnties ofthe Cashier,
as the executive officer OF a banking asso-
ciation and " il any bank" say Angel Il
Ames on corporations, sec. 800, chooses
70 depart from this general eOurse OF
business, il is certainly at liberty TO
do so; but in such case il ia incumbent on
the bank to shoT that il has inserposed q
restriction, and that such restriction is
known to those with whom it ia in the
habit Of doing business. A clause in a
bank charter requiring the signature Of the
President and the counter signature of the
Cashier, 10 any contract or engagement
whatever, before the funds of the bank
should be liable therefor, was construed
not to apply TO or restrict the powers of the
Cashier 10 draw and indorse bills of ex-
change, drafts and cheeks, in the ordinary
discharge ofihis duties az Cashier.
In addition 10 this authority which
seems to be:sustained by the cases Of Mer-
charts Bank as Central Bank. l Kelly
(Ga.) r. 430, and Cary rs. Mcdonald. 2
Georgia R., 84, this question came di-
rectly before the Supreme Court of the
United States, in which the same doctrine
was recognized. .r A
In the case of Mechanics Bank Of Al.
exandria as. Bank of Columbia, 5 Wheat,
U. S. R., 326, almost the identical question
was presented that is raised in this record.
The charter of the bank contained pro-
vision that "all bills, bonds, notes and every
other contract or engagementon behalfofthe
corporation, should be signed by the Presi-
dent and countersigned by the Cashier, and
and that the funds of the corporation should
in no case be liable for any contract or en-.
gagement, unless the same should Designed
and countersigned as aforesaid" and the
court held that this section did not apply
or extend to contracts and undertaking.
implied in law; and that the bank was
liable for money advanced upon a check
made in the course of business, and signed
Oy tno OdSnler only. 30 IL seems clear,
both upon reason and authority, as well as
the general custom of banks, as shown in
this record, that the Cashier of bank, as
its executive officer, through whom all the
monied operations of the bank are trans
acted, may girtttte o6fcia bind the funds Of
the bank in matters of contract springing
out of his legitimate and ordinary duties as
Cashier; and that the restrictions in the
charter requiring the signature of the
President and counter signature of the
Cashier, do not extend to and comprehend
such contract as the drawing and indorsing
of bills of exchange, drafts and checks
which are implied by law as part of the
ordinary duties of the Cashier.
From this view of the case, it follows
that the defendant in this case did not
transcend the scope of his authority as
Cashier of the bank, or violate the spirit
and meaning of its charter, and he is not,
therefore, individually responsible for the
drafts in controversy to the holder.
Affirm the judgment, MILLIeAE..