Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 9.djvu/311

RECENT CASES. 283 RECENT CASES. Banks and Banking— Negl'ge ce in Supervision (^f Bank Officer.— Where a special deposit for gratuitous safe-keeping was made with a bank and stolen by its cashier, heU, that the bank was not discharged from liability if negligent in retaining the cashier when it ought to have known that he had become unworthy of trust. Alerchanis' Naiional JJaii/i v. Larhart^ 22 S. E. Rep. 628 ( Ga. ). If a bank official undertakes to act in a manner which is tdtra vires of the corpora- tion, his act wi 1 not bind the corporation or furnish a cause of action against it. At- lantic Bank V. Merchants^ Bank, 10 Gray, 532. A bank must use ordinary care, how- ever, in the gratuitous keeping of aspecial deposit, and the fact that due care has been exercised in procuring a servant in the first place is no reason why diligence should cease in regard to him. Gilnian v. Jailroad Cotporation, 10 Allen, 233. The decision seems sound, therefore, and is supported by such meagre authority as there is on the subject. Scott V. National Bank, 72 Pa. St. 471. Bills and Notes — Bona Fide Purchaser — Noiice. — The payee of a note fraudulently procured from the defendant, indorsed it to the plaintiff for valuable con- sideration, in violation of an agreement not to convey. The plaintiff had notice cf the agreement, but not of the fraud. Held, that the plaintiff could recover on the note. 'I'hompson v. Love, 32 S. W. Rep. 65 ( Ark. ). It is difficult to say on what ground the court put this decision, but the right result seems to have been reached. If the agreement were oral and simultaneous with the giving of the note, it would probably be i admissible as varying the effect of the writ- ing ; this would dispose of the matter at once. But if the agreement were in writing, or made subsequently for good consideration, the case would be more doubtful. Even such an agreement, however, would not affect the validity of th • note, and a breach of it would result only in the personal liability of the promisor. It seems equally clear that no notice of the fraudulent procurement of the note could be imputed to the in- dorsee because of his knowledge of the agreement. Bills and Notes — Statute of Limitations. — Where, for thirteen years, no demand was made upon a promissory note payable thirty days after demand, held, since it did not appear that the parties intended to limit the time within which present- ment should be made, the holder of the note was not barred from suit against the maker. Cooke v. Pomeroy^ 32 Atl, Rep. 935 ( Conn. ). Action does not accrue upon a note payable a certain number of days after demand until demand is actually made. Until such time, then, the Statute of Limitations can- not begin to run against it. There are some authorities which hold that the demand must be made within a reasonable time, which is ordinarily fixed at the period allowed by statute for suing on a note payable at the time of its date. Palnur v. Pi<i//ier, 36 Mich. 487. The court here errs in attempting to distinguish those cases on the ground of extrinsic evidence, for where they do not refer exclusively to the discharge of an indorser, they are clearly wrong. Wcnman v. Mohauk Insurance Co., 13 Wend. 267. Carriers — Bill of Lading — Deficiency in the Cargo. — Ac ion by the assignee of the consignor of grain by defendant's vessel on the following bill of lading. " All the deficiency in cargo to be paid for by the carrier. . . . and deducted from the freight." On the vessel's arrival at the port of destination it was ascertained that some 2,000 bushels less than supposed were on board, the deficiency being due to a mistake in the weighing at the port of departure Leui, that the carrier was liable for the shortage in the cargo though the grain had never actually been loaded on board the vessel. Sawyer v. Cleveland Iron Min. C 0., 69 Fed. Rep. 211. Where the case arises between the carrier and a consigme, the bill of lading and facts being otherwise similar to those set out above, the consignee is allowed to recover. "Otherwise," says the court in Hhrrick v. Certain Wkeat, 3 Fed. Rep. 34'^, "there would be no necessity for inserting the stipulation at all, because the consignee, with- out any express stipulation, has the right to deduct from the freight a deficiency in the cargo actually received by the carrier and arising from his fault, . . . and it is not reasonable to suppose the parties meant to insert a useless condition in the contract." The court in the present case thought the same rule applicable to a consigner, as no evidence showed the consignor was privy to the mistake, he being entirely uniepre- sented at the weighing in question except by the carrier, and so in the same relative position in this respect as a consignee would b ar to the cairier. If the consignor could have recovered, then his assignee, the plaintiff can recover.