- M TBDBSBAlJ- SXFOSTBB.
�the question on behalf of :tlie corporation. See Sanh of V. 8. v, Davis, 2 Hill, (N. T.) 451; National Security Bank v. Cushman, 122 Mass. 490; Bank of New Miiford v. Toton ofNew MUford, 36 Conn. 93. �As a matter of presumption, the knowledge of a director or other offlcer may be of much iniportance. Thus, where the cashier of a bank, with knowl- edge that a stockholder had pledged his stock to secure a debt, was ex officia a member of the discount committee, and a note of the same stockholder was discounted by the bank, it was held that the cashier was presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to have been present when the note was discounted, and bis knowledge that the stock had been pledged was a sufii- cient notice to the bank. Bank of N. Am. v. McNeil, 10 Bush, (Ky.) 54 ; and see National Security Bank v. CmsAwiow, 122 Mass. 490; Commereial Bank V. Wood, 7 "Watts & S. 89. �Notice to the board of directors of a corporation is notice to the corporation. Mechanios' Barik of Aiexandria v. Seton, 1 Pet. (U. S.) 299; Bank ofPitts- burgh v. WhUehead, 10 Watts, 397; Olcott v. Tioga R. Co. 27 K Y. 546; Toll Bridge Go. v. Betsworth, 30 Conn. 380. And no subsequent change in the persons eomposing the board will prevent the corporation from being affected by such notice. . Mechanios' Bank of Aiexandria v. Seton, supi-a; FultonBank v. N. Y. & Sharon Canal Co. i Paige, Ch. 127. And if a body, consisting Of several persons, — as a board of directors,— is engaged in the transaction of the business of the corporation, notice to any member of such bodyv while engaged in said business, is notice to the corporation. Bank of U. 8. V. Davis, 2 Hill, (N. Y.) 451 ; Wade, Notice, § 682. Notice to the cashier, in matters relating to the ordinary business of the institution, is notice to the bank. New Hope, etc., Bridge Co. v. Phenix Bank, 3 Comst. (N. Y.) 156; Trenton Banking Co. v. Woodruff, 1 Greeu, Ch. 117 ; and see Branoh Bank, etc., Y. Steele, 10 Ala. (N. S.) 915. The treasurer is the proper officer to whoin, when payment is made, notice of the purpose to which it is to be applied should be given. New England, etc., Co. v. Union, etc., Co. 4 Blatchf. 1. And; generally, notice to the offlcer in charge or having control of a de- partinent or branch of the business, concerning matters pertaining to such department or branch, is sufficient. Quincy Coal Co. v. Hood, 11 111. 68; New England, etc., Co. v. Union, etc., Co. 4 Blatchf. 1 ; Smith v. Water Com'rs, 38 Conn. 208; Meohanics' Bank v. Schaumburg, 38 Mo. 228; Danville Bridge Co. V. Porr.roy, 15 Pa. St. 151. See Black v. Camden, etc., R.Co. 45 Barb. 40; Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Elliott, 1 Coldw. 611. Knowledge of facts by, or notice to, a ioere stockholder is not notice to the corporation of the existence ■of those faets. Housatonio' Bank v. Martin, 1 Metc. (Mass.) 294; Bank of Pittsburgh v. Whitehead,10 Watts, 397; Union Can. Co. v. Loyd, 4 Watts & S. 393 ; The Admirai,' 8 Law Eep. (N. S.) 91. Nor to a corporator, unless he is constituted an organ of communication by charter or by-laws. Custer v. ThompkinsCo. Bank, 9 'Pu. St. 21. �Cincinnati. July, 1881. J. C. Harfer, ��� �
