Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1875-02-26

U. S. 500 bonds, for which a receipt was
given him, as follows;
"Tbo First National Bank Of Bratlloboro.
Brattleboro, VT, Jan. s, 1869. Lucius H..
| Wiley has deposited in this bank twenty
! four hundred dollars OF 5-20s, 1867, for
safe keeping, as special deposit. 5. NJ.
Waite, C.'
The plaintiff called at tho bank and re-
ceived his coupons and the value thereof
in money as they severally became due. lie
did not call for his interest July l, 1871, but
in August, 1871, he called at the bank, pre-
scented his receipt and demanded his bonds,
when Mr.. Waite informed him that his
bonds were stolen the June before and
he could not deliver them.
The defendants gave no evidence in either
case that the bonds had in fact been stolen,
nor did the evidence show, save as above
stated, that tho bank had been robbed, or
any reason for not delivering them when
demanded, except as aforesaid. TWAS con-
coded that the words, "The First National
Bank of Brattleboro," were printed head
ing TO the paper upon which the receipts
were written. 1t was also conceded that
the letter "C'' at the end of the name of
as. NJ. Waite" was an abbreviation of the
word cashier" and that Mr.. Waite pro-
fessed to sign the receipts as cashier. 1t
was further conceded that the defendants
were a National Bank, duly organized I'M
der the act ofCongress of June, 1864, known
rs the National Currency Act"
On the trial of the causes in the court be-
low the defendants offered no evidence, and
declined to go to the Jury with any question
of fact, but asked the court to hold as mat
ter of law that as they were national bank
duly organized under act of Congress be-
fore referred to, they could not be held liza
BILE for the loss Of these special deposits, and
that Mr.. Waite could not bind the bank by
the contracts set forth in the receipts. No
other question was raised by the defend
ants. The court pro Jormd declined to hold
as requested and directed a verdict in each
case for the plaintiff, to which the defend
ants excepted.
The cases were ably argued by c. n.
Davenport, Esq, of Bratteboro for the
plaintiffs, and Il. ]. Phelps, Esq, of Bur-
lington for the defendants, at the term Of
the Supreme Court held at Newfane last
weel-present Chief Justice Pierpont and
Justices Wheeler, Ross and Powers. The
counsel for the defendants contended that
under the national banking act the cashier
had no power to bind the bank for the safe
keeping of special deposits, such as the
cases show were delivered him by the plain
tiff. The counsel quoted from the said act of
Congress more particularly the Sth section
which defines the powers of national banks
and in which is the following language:
- and exercise under this act such
incidental powers as shall be necessary to
carry on the business of banking by dis
counting and negotiating promissory notes,
drafts, bills of exchange and other evidence
es of debt; by receiving deposits, by buy
ing and selling exchange, coin and bullion I;
by loaning money on personal security;
by obtaining, issuing and circulating notes
according TO the provisions OF this act.''
He cited authority to show that corpo-
ration has no powers except those conferred
upon it by the act under which it is incor-
porated that they have no rights except
such as are specifically granted, and those
that are necessary to carry into effect the
powers so granted. The counsel contended
that the receiving OF special deposits for
safe keeping, whereby the bank may be-
come liable for negligence of its officers in
the custody of such property, is business
which it is not within the corporate power
of the oank to engage in that the national
banking act neither directly or by implica-
ton confers upon the bank any authority
to receive such deposits; that the term 're-
ceiving deposits" as used in the Sth section
of the act, was intended to apply only to such
general deposits of money, as may be "nec-
essary TO carry on the business of bank
ing;" that special deposits of securities for
safe keeping have no more to do with the
business of banking than special deposits
of jewels, plate or works of art in the safe
of bank. The bank having no power un-
der the banking act TO receive such depos-
its for safe keeping, the act of the cashier
in this respect cannot bind the bank in its
corporate capacity, and the officers cannot
bind the bank by a contract which, under
its charter, it has no power to make.
The counsel for the plaintiffs of course
contended that the bank had power to re-
ceive such securities on deposit under the
national banking act, and that the bank
was bound by the contracts of its agent, the
cashier, TO return the bonds on demand.
The court held the law to be as contend
ed for by the defendants counsel, and
therefore rendered judgment reversing the
decision of the county court, and remand
ing tho causes to that court.
------