The News-Herald. [volume] (Hillsboro, Highland Co., Ohio) 1886-1973, 1894-05-31

SubhoINVs
for, or if you find that the directors per.
mitted appearances to be such as would
justify reasonable man in the honest
belief that Overman possessed the au'
thority to do the acts he did, and the
plaintiff in good faith and honestly relied
upon such appearances, in either case,
the execution of such certificates on the
part of Overman as president Of the bank
would be the act of the bank, unless the
transactions between Overman, and
Barrere were in fact loans and not de.
posits. The definition of a deposit and
of loan, and the distinction between
the two will be stated further along.
Testimony has been introduced tend.
ing to show that after some of the certifi.
Gates issued to plaintiff by Overman
during the course of their dealings, they
were taken up and renewed by certifi.
Gates of the bank issued by o. S. Price,
cashier, and that these certificates with
others signed by Overman were carried
along and form part of the consideration
of some of the certificates sued on. And
| if you should not find that Overman was
| invested with authority to issue certifi
Gates of deposit of the bank, it was com.
| petent for Price, as cashier, who did
| have such authority, to adopt the sigma
! ture of Overman TO certificates of deposit
and treat it as his own. And if he did
so by issuing his own certificate or Ger.
| titicates in renewal of any certificates
signed by Overman, and if such renewed
certificates represented money deposited
in the bank, then such certificates so is.
sued by Price would be valid and con-
stitute, so far as they 60, valid consid.
Grafton for the certificates sued on. And
the certificates so signed by Price would
create prima facie liability against the
bank for the amount of them.
We come now to the question of con-
sideration. And it is not required that
the plaintiff should show the consider
alton to be the full amount called for by
the certificates. If he shows a partial
consideration for any of such certificates,
such certificates will be valid as to con.
sideration to the extent that consider.
alton was given. This consideration
must consist of money or checks given
to and received by the bank. But this
does not mean that the plaintiff must
show that the money went into the
vault of the bank and was used by it.
1t will be payment to the bank, if the
money or checks were paid or delivered
to an officer or agent of the bank having
authority to receive it. The directors Of
The Citizens National Bank were
guarantors to the public, of the fidelity
and integrity of the officers and agents
selected by them for the management
of the banks business, while those off.
GERS and agents were acting for the bank
xrif in hn &c
duties as such. And therefore, the mis-.
officer of the bank of deposit received
by him from the plaintiff for the bank,
by its authority, will be the loss of the
bank and will not prejudice the plaintiff.
If @. M. Overman was authorized by
the Board of Directors either by express
direction from them, or by their ac-
quiesence in his acts, to receive deposits
for the bank issue the banks certificate
therefor; and if the plaintiff, at the
bank, and in the usual course of bust.
ness, delivered to said Overman to be
deposited in said bank the money, or
its equivalent, that went to make up the
certificates sued on, or any of them, and
If in such case said Overman received
said money or its equivalent and issued
to the plaintiff the certificate of the bank
therefor, then the plaintiff should have
verdict at your hands for sum equal
to the actual amount of money deposited
by plaintiff together with interest calcd.
lated thereon as l will hereafter state.
AS to the checks of plaintiff made pay
able to the order Of o S. Price, cashier,
and purporting to bear the endorsement |
OF Price as cashier, by official stamp, if
paid by the banks on which they were
drawn, the presumption from these facts
is that he received the money thereon.
The use OF such stamp in the ordinary
course OF the banks business, may be |
presumed to be by him or by his au.
thority. Besides, he is supposed, in the |
absence of any showing to the contrary,
to have discharged his duty faithfully |
and a faithful discharge of the cashiers |
duty required of him that he should be |
ordinarily careful to prevent any unau.
thorized use OF such stamp. And if by
his lack OF ordinary care, fraudulentsl
use OF such stamp was made by another |
to the prejudice of the bank, the bank |
will be compelled to bear such loss oc.
casioned by such unauth orized use. The |
Citizens National Bank, of which Price |
was cashier, stood good for all his official |
acts as such, and consequently the
plaintiff is not called upon to trace any
money deposited with said bank beyond
the hands of the cashier.
The moment any money was received |
by Price, as cashier, IN the usual course
of his duties as such, to be deposited in
the Citizens National Bank, either on
time or open account, the money so
received became the property of said
bank, and the loss of such money by it's
subsequent misappropriation by any
officer of the bank, either with or with.
out the consent OF Price, would fall
upon the bank.
But as to checks and money delivered
by plaintiff to Overman the rule is differ
ent. No implication arises from the
mere fact of his being president of the
bank that the bank received any monies
paid to l,im. The plaintiff, in such case,
must 20 further and show that Overman
had authority from the directors, either
express or implied, to receive deposits
n QaiA hanE pnf 70 on.h auth rritv 10 |