4 Denio 299 | N.Y. Sup. Ct. | 1847
There is no error in this case of which the defendant can complain, and none is alleged on the part of the receiver.
It may be collected from the report of the referees, although the evidence is not stated with much detail, or particularity, that Hatch and the defendant, the president and cashier of the bank now represented by the receiver, were engaged in 1839 or 1840, in establishing a new. banking institution, called the Union
As far as I comprehend the principle on which this defence was supposed to be available, it must have been that while bank officers assumed or pretended to be acting on behalf of, and for the benefit of the institution of which they were officers, they could, in no case, be held responsible to the corporation for what was done. But this is a point of doctrine to be 'established, and which has not yet been done. Bank officers are but agents of the corporation, and if they transcend or abuse their powers are as much responsible to their principal as are the agents of an individual. This ought to be regarded as too plain to require argument or authority, and I shall offer neither.
In this case it was not denied that the defendant had received the sum in question. He received it either to be used for the Dank in the purchase of canal and rail road stock, or to be used for
Motion to set aside report denied.