1 Biss. 146 | U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois | 1857
(charging jury). Mr. Bronson, as the cashier of the Merchants and Mechanics’ Bank, had no right, because be was cashier merely, to make the contract he made with Mr. Jones •of the 28th of September, 1853, so as to bind the bank; there must have been an express authority from the bank or one resulting from necessary implication. And in order to be binding on the bank at all, it would have to be in the nature of the appointment of an agent, and not an appointment to the cashier-ship of a bank in another state.
A bank, undoubtedly, may appoint agents in another state to perform any act which it could perform itself, and which is not prohibited by law.
If the items in the account which it is alleged are charged to the defendant, as salary of Mr. Jones, have been admitted or allowed by the bank as a bank, for services performed, then the jury may charge the defendant with them, or if, with a full knowledge of all the facts attending its payment, the bank has admitted or allowed it, in the nature of compensation for services performed, and not as salary merely, then the defendant was bound by it, but not otherwise.
The cashier of a bank is ordinarily the executive officer of the bank. He is the agent through whom third persons transact their business with the bank. The bank generally holds him out to the world as having authority to act, according to the general usage, practice, and course of business, and all acts done by him within the scope of such usage, practice, and course of business bind the bank as to third persons who transact business with him on the faith of his official character; and perhaps it may be presumed, without proof and merely from his office, that he is authorized to receipt and discharge debts and deliver up securities on payment or discharge of the debt fór which they were held, and he may have power to endorse bills, notes, &c„ for collection. He may draw checks for funds in other banks. Possibly these powers might be inferred from his official position. But still his authority is a limited authority, aud when a party claims a discharge from a debt due the bank, not by payment, but by giving other or different notes, bills, or securities, which the cashier has agreed to take and release the debt, his authority, like that of any other agent, must be shown by proof.
As a general rule, a jury have not a right to infer that a cashier of a bank, as such, has the authority to compromise and discharge debts without payment, or by taking other securities, but the authority from the bank must be shown expressly or by necessary implication, or it must exist and be established by the particular usage, or practice, or mode of doing business of the bank, or it must be ratified or acquiesced in by the bank in order to be binding.
Verdict for plaintiff.