Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 8.djvu/518

502 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. The final result is so interesting that the Review copies it in full. " Cases of other c6urts were cited in the decisions contained in the latest volumes of reports from forty-five States (including all the newer States, as well as the older), as follows : — United States 1669 English 1594 New York 1424 Massachusetts .... 1268 California 805 Pennsylvania 532 Illinois ....... 471 Michigan 385 Iowa 355 Indiana ....... 317 Missouri 306 Wisconsin 303 Maine " 230 Minnesota 215 Ohio 207 Connecticut 206 New Hampshire .... 205 New Jersey 205 Alabama 163 Kansas 158 Vermont 151 Maryland 131 Texas 126 North Carolina .... 103 Georgia ........ 92 Tennesseie 89 Kentucky 87 Nebraska 78 Mississippi 70 South Carolina 66 Virginia 66 Colorado 62 Louisiana 59 Nevada 58 Arkansas 53 Rhode Island ....... 39 Oregon 39 West Virginia 34 Arizona 22 Montana 21 Idaho 15 Florida 14 South Dakota 13 Washington 12 North Dakota 9 Delaware . 8 Wyoming ....... 2 " 1 RECENT CASES. Agency — Fraudulent Act of Bank Officer — Principal not Bound by THE Act of Knowledge of such Officer. — The vice-president of a bank placed notes given by his father payable to the bank among the assets of the bank, to replace some stock belonging to himself which had been objected to by the bank examiner. The stock was afterwards taken back by the vice-president as payment of the notes, and replaced among the assets. All this was done without the knowledge of the other bank officers. Held, that the bank was not bound by this payment of the notes, but they were still valid against the father. Findley v. Cmvles, 61 N. W. Rep. 998 (Iowa). The case seems perfectly supportable on the ground that the vice-president was not acting within the scope of his authority in receiving stock in payment of notes, or that the father was implicated in the fraud. But there seems to be no occasion for the application of the doctrine that the knowledge of an agent committing a fraud is not imputable to the principal, though the court rely on this very strongly, citing Innerarity V. Bank, 139 Mass. 332. Agency — Knowledge of Bank Cashier — Effect as Notice. — The cashier of defendant bank mortgaged certain property of his to the plaintiff, it being provided that the mortgagor should have the right to sell, and apply the proceeds in payment of the mortgage. The cashier took the property to market, sold it, and sent the draft he received in payment, to the vice-president of defendant bank, who was acting cashier in his absence, with directions to place it to his credit. The acting cashier applied it in payment of an overdraft on the bank by the regular cashier. Held, that the knowledge of the regular cashier as to the nature of the draft was not imputable to the bank, and that it held freed from equities. Rock Spring National Bank v. Suman, 38 Pac. Rep. 678 (Wyoming). The decision, which seems clearly right, goes principally upon the ground that the bank cashier was not the agent of the bank at the time of the transaction. But even if 1 I Leg. Bib., N. S., p. 2.