BAILMENT. BAILEE'S LIABILITY-DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY — When property in the custody of the bailee is destroyed accidentally, without any fault on his part, he is not liable. (Drudge v. Leiter, 359.) See Warehousemen, 7. BANKS AND BANKING. 1. BANKS-CHECKS-DISHONOR OF, IS UNAUTHORIZED WHEN.-A bank is not authorized to refuse payment of a check to a bona fide holder, if the drawer's deposit is sufficient, although the drawer has ordered the bank not to pay the check. (Gage Hotel Co. v. Union Nat. Bank, 270.) 2. BANKS - CHECKS - DISHONOR OF LIABILITY OF BANK.-If a bank has sufficient funds of the drawer on deposit, with which to pay a check duly presented, it is liable to a bona fide holder for value, although payment is refused by direction of the drawer. (Gage Hotel Co. v. Union Nat. Bank, 270.) 3. A BANK PAYING A CHECK UPON A FORGED INDORSEMENT and charging the amount thereof to the account of the drawer is liable to him, if the amount was wrongfully charged to his account, where the check has never been delivered to the payee. (German Sav. Bank v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 399.) 4. BANKS-CHECKS-PRIVATE ARRANGEMENT AS TO PAYMENT-EFFECT OF.-A private arrangement between a bank and one of its depositors not to apply a new deposit to the payment of a check previously drawn, does not exonerate the bank from its liability to pay such a check, if the amount of the drawer's old and new deposits are together sufficient to pay it. (Gage Hotel Co. v. Union Nat. Bank, 270.) 5. BANKING-RIGHT TO RECOVER FOR PAYMENT OF FORGED CHECK.-If a bank draws a check in favor of a third person, who has no knowledge thereof, and whose name is thereafter forged thereon, and the check cashed by another bank, which, in turn, sends it to a third for collection, and the latter charges the amount thereof against the drawer's deposit account with it, the drawer may recover the sum so wrongfully charged against its account. (German Sav. Bank v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 399.) 6. A BANK IS NOT GUILTY OF NEGLIGENCE in not discovering, for nearly a year, that a check drawn by it and paid by another bank and charged to the drawer's account had been paid upon a forged indorsement. It had a right to assume that the bank thus making payment had satisfied itself of the genuineness of the indorsement. (German Sav. Bank v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 399.) BANKING-FORGED 7. CHECKS.-A DEPOSITOR DOES NOT OWE any duty to a bank to examine his pass-book and checks for the purpose of detecting forgeries of the payee's name on checks drawn by such depositor. (German Sav. Bank v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 399.) 8. A BANK IS NOT BOUND TO TAKE NOTICE of memoranda or figures on the margin of a check which the depositor placed there for his own convenience to preserve information for his own benefit. (Duckett v. Mechanics' Nat. Bank. 513.) 9. BANKING-CHECKS, INQUIRIES RESPECTING. CONSTRUCTION OF.-If a bank which has drawn a check is asked over the telephone whether it has issued a check in favor of a designated person, and whether it is all right, and answers in the affirmative, it does not thereby affirm that the indorsement of the payee's name on the check, which indorsement it has never seen, is genuine, nor that the person presenting the check is entitled to receive payment. Such an inquiry would ordinarily be understood as applying only to the validity of the drawer's signature, and to the question whether there were moneys with which to meet the check. (German Sav. Bank v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 399.) 10. INTEREST, WHEN RECOVERABLE.-If a check is paid upon a forged indorsemert and the amount thereof wrongfully charged to a depositor, who thereafter sues to recover the amount thus wrongfully deducted from his deposit account, he is entitled to recover interest from the date of such charge, though his deposit could not draw interest. (German Sav. Bank v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 399.) 11. BANKS AND BANKING-PRINCIPAL AND AGENT.—If a national bank voluntarily acts as agent for its depositor in the sale of his stock or securities, and accepts a check in payment instead of cash, without authority from him, and credits his account with the amount of the check, it is liable to him therefor, although such check afterward proves worthless, and the bank exercises due diligence in attempting to collect it. (Pepperday v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 769.) 12. BANKS AND BANKING-PRINCIPAL AND AGENT-VOLUNTARY PAYMENT.-If a bank acts as agent for its depositor in a sale of his securities and accepts a check instead of cash in payment, without authority from him, notifying him of the deposit of such check to his credit, and afterward paying his check for the amount so received, such payment is voluntary and cannot be recalled by the bank, although the check received by it subsequently proves to be worthless, and it uses due diligence in attempting to collect it. (Pepperday v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 769.). 13. BANKS-WHEN NOT ANSWERABLE FOR PAYING OUT MONEYS.-Whenever moneys are placed on deposit, and neither the bank nor any of its officers are aware that such moneys do not belong to the person depositing them, it, by paying out the moneys on the depositor's check, frees itself from all liability therefor, though it turns out that they belong to another. (Duckett v. Mechanics' Nat. Bank, 513.) 14. BANKS-LIABILITY FOR MONEYS DEPOSITED BY ONE AS TRUSTEE.-If moneys are deposited by one as trustee, he, as such trustee, has a right to withdraw them, and the bank, in the absence of notice to the contrary, is bound to assume, and is protected in assuming, that the trustee will appropriate the moneys, when drawn, to the proper use. (Duckett v. Mechanics' Nat. Bank, 513.) 15. A BANK IN WHICH MONEYS ARE DEPOSITED IN THE NAME OF A TRUSTEE as such is under no obligation to look to the appropriation of moneys withdrawn by him, or to protect the trust by setting up the jus tertii against the demand. (Duckett v. Mechanics' Nat. Bank, 513.) 16. IF A BANK IN WHICH MONEYS ARE DEPOSITED IN THE NAME OF A TRUSTEE as such, has knowledge that a breach of his trust is being committed by the improper withdrawal of such funds, or if it participates in the profits or fruits of any fraud upon the trust, it is answerable. (Duckett v. Mechanics' Nat. Bank, 513.) 17. BANKING-TRUST FUNDS-NOTICE THAT DEPOSIT CONSISTS OF WHAT IS NOT.-A check directing moneys to be paid to the credit of H. C., adding "being a balance of the purchase money due him as trustee for I. R. C.," is payable to him personally, and hence does not charge the bank in which it is deposited with notice that it represents trust funds, and that it is a breach of the trust to deposit it to the individual account of the trustee and to draw it out on his personal checks. (Duckett v. Mechanics' Nat. Bank, 513) 18. BANKS--TRUST FUNDS, NOTICE OF-WHEN IMPARTED BY A CHECK.-A check for a sum of money "to deposit to the credit of H. C., Trustee," notifies the bank that he is not the owner of the money, and instructs it not to place that money to his personal account, and if it does place the money to his personal credit and loss ensues, it is answerable. In the eye of the law it participates in the breach of the trust. (Duckett v. Mechanics' Nat. Bank, 513.) 19. BANKS-WHEN LIABLE FOR TRUST FUNDS IMPROPERLY WITHDRAWN.-If a bank receives a check payable to a depositor as trustee, and credits it to his personal account and permits him to draw it out on his personal check, it is liable with him for a breach of the trust. (Duckett v. Mechanics' Nat. Bank, 513.) 20. FRAUDULENT BANKING.-AN INDICTMENT for frauduulent banking sufficiently states who was injured or defrauded, and who was the owner of the deposit, where it charges that the banker, knowing himself to be insolvent, accepted a deposit from a person named. (State v. Eifert, 433.) 21. FRAUDULENT BANKING-DEFENSE.-It is no defense to an indictment for fraudulent banking, in receiving a deposit knowing the bank to be insolvent, that the depositor might pursue the deposit as a trust fund. (State v. Eifert, 433.) 22. FRAUDULENT BANKING-EVIDENCE OF RECEIVING DEPOSIT-UNAUTHORIZED ACT-INSTRUCTION.-Upon the trial of a banker for fraudulent banking, in receiving a deposit knowing the bank to be insolvent, it is proper to instruct the jury that the defendant "knowingly accepted and received" the deposit, though it was received against his express orders, when he, after knowledge of its being made, accepted it as a deposit, and treated it as a part of the assets of the bank; as such instruction places the acceptance of the deposit on the defendant's own act, and not on the ratification of the act of his cashier, who disregarded his orders. (State v. Eifert, 433.) 23. FRAUDULENT BANKING-EVIDENCE OF RECEIVING DEPOSIT.-Upon the trial of a banker for fraudulent banking, in receiving a deposit knowing himself to be insolvent, the fact that the defendant received and accepted the deposit is proved by showing that it was received by the cashier or agent of the defendant, under his authority, without showing that it was received by him personally, or that he was present when it was received. (State v. Eifert, 433.) 24. FRAUDULENT BANKING-BANKER IS GUILTY OF, WHEN.-If a banker, knowing his bank to be insolvent, leaves it for a distant city and telephones his son, left in charge of the bank, not to receive any more deposits, but to close the bank, and the son, after receiving such message, ignores it, and accepts a deposit before closing, and the father, upon his return, is made acquainted with what has been done, and fails to repudiate the transaction, but, on the contrary, retains the money and includes it, some days later, in a general assignment for the benefit of his creditors, the banker is guilty of the offense of receiving and accepting a deposit knowing himself to be insolvent. (State v. Eifert, 433.) 25. CORPORATIONS-ULTRA VIRES-NATIONAL BANKS.If a national bank advances money on goods about to be shipped and receives a bill of lading as collateral security, one who subsequently attaches such goods under a writ against the shipper is not in a posi on to insist that the act of the bank was ultra vires. (Ayres etc. Co. v. Dorsey Produce Co., 376.) STOCKHOLDER'S 26. NATIONAL BANKS LIABILITY, WHO HOLDS STOCK IN TRUST.-One to whom stock in a national bank has been issued as self-appointed attorney of an infant of tender years, or for an undisclosed principal, is subject to the liabilities imposed by the acts of Congress upon stockholders in Buch banks. (Kerr v. Urie, 493.) 27. HUSBAND AND WIFE.-A TRANSFER BY A HUSBAND TO HIS WIFE OF STOCK IN A NATIONAL BANKING CORPORATION, made in good faith, vests her with the ownership thereof, and her equitable title is complete before a certificate is issued to her and before any entry of the transfer is made on the books of the corporation. After such transfer the husband is not subject to any liabilities which attach, under the laws of Congress, to the holders of stock in such corporations. (Kerr v. Urie, 493.) Bee Bills of Lading, 2; Checks; Corporations, 4; Trusts, 8-10; Witnesses, 2. BILL OF EXCEPTIONS. BILLS OF LADING. 1. BILLS OF LADING.-AN ASSIGNMENT OF a bill of lading, while goods are in the possession of the carrier, operates to transfer the title thereto. (Ayres etc. Co. v. Dorsey Produce Co., 376.) 2. BILL OF LADING AS COLLATERAL SECURITY.-A bank advancing moneys on goods about to be shipped may receive and hold a bill of lading in its name as collateral security for such advances. (Ayres etc. Co. v. Dorsey Produce Co., 376.) See Banking, 25; Carriers, 9. BONA FIDE PURCHASERS. See Judgment, 13; Negotiable Instruments, 3. BURDEN OF PROOF. Bee Conveyance, 4; Insurance, 11; Judgment, 6; Mortgage, 11; Negligence, 4; Partition, 3, 4. CARRIERS. 1. CARRIERS, NEGLIGENCE, STIPULATIONS SEEKING TO EXCLUDE FROM LIABILITY FOR.-A common carrier canBot stipulate for exemption from liability for his own negligence. (Bird v. Railroads, 856.) 2. CARRIERS-LIABILITY FOR GOODS AS BAGGAGE.While a carrier of passengers is not obliged to accept anything but ordinary baggage as baggage, yet, if without extra compensation, and knowing that it is not personal baggage, he permits it to be treated, and carried as such, he is liable for its loss through negligence. (Toledo etc. Ry. Co. v. Bowler etc. Co., 702.) 3. CARRIERS-LIABILITY FOR MERCHANDISE CARRIED AS BAGGAGE.-If a carrier of passengers, for the purpose of obtaining patronage, and with actual knowledge of all the material facts, waives its right to refuse merchandise which it is requested to arry as baggage, or to make an additional charge commensurate with the increased risk, and carries it as baggage, it cannot, after loss has occurred, assert an immunity from liability because of such right. (Toledo etc. Ry. Co. v. Bowler etc. Co., 702.) 4. A CARRIER OF LIVESTOCK is not liable as a common carrier. (Heller v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 541.) 5. A CARRIER OF LIVESTOCK OWES TO THE SHIPPER the duty to transport the car and its contents with ordinary prudence, skill, and care, and with reasonable dispatch. (Heller v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 541.) 6. CARRIERS.-A shipper of livestock assumes all the ordinary risks of transportation, including that resulting from its restlessness, viciousness, exhaustion, hunger, and thirst, and also from jars and concussions induced by the stopping and starting of the train, and where responsible for the number placed in a car, he also assumes all risks arising from its overcrowded condition. (Heller v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 541.) 7. CARRIERS-LIVESTOCK.-A shipper of livestock, where it is the custom of shippers to send a caretaker, who fails to comply with this custom, assumes all the risk of injury resulting therefrom. He has no right to assume that the conductor or brakeman of the train will perform the duties of caretakers of his stock, and hence cannot recover for losses suffered through their failure to do so. (Heller v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 541.) 8. CARRIERS.-THE FIRST OR INITIAL CARRIER may undertake the transportation of goods to the terminus of its line merely, and hence may, by stipulation or condition in its bill of lading, limit its liability to its own line. (Bird v. Railroads, 856.) 9. CARRIERS.-EACH OF SEVERAL CONNECTING CARRIERS over all their routes is entitled to the benefit of any lawful exemption or exception contained in the bill of lading issued by the initial carrier, though such carrier restricts its liability to its own lines. (Bird v. Railroads, 856.) 10. CARRIERS, INTERMEDIATE, DUTIES OF.-Where a second, or intermediate carrier, in delivering goods to a third carrier, is, by the latter, informed that they will not be forwarded until the freight charges are paid, it becomes the duty of the intermediate carrier to notify the shipper or the initial carrier, and such intermediate carrier is answerable for the loss of the goods through their being detained for the nonpayment of charges, because the shipper is ignorant of the demand for such payment by the third carrier. (Bird v. Railroads, 856.) 11. CARRIERS. CONNECTING.-THE INITIAL AND INTERMEDIATE CARRIERS, by accepting goods for transportation to a designated station beyond the line of their routes, thereby represent to the shipper that such station is not a prepay station, and obligate themselves to see that the shipper is not injured by a demand made by the final carrier for the payment of freight charges as a condition precedent for the transportation to such station. (Bird v. Railroads, 856.) 12. CARRIERS.-A PREPAY STATION IS ONE at which the carrier delivers freight to the consignee, directly and without the intervention of a local agent, and to which consignments are accepted only upon the condition of charges for transportation being prepaid by the shipper. (Bird v. Railroads, 856.) CHARITIES. 1. CHARITIES-CHARITABLE TRUST-DEFINITIONS.-A charity is a gift to be applied, consistently with existing laws, for the benefit of an indefinite number of persons, either by bringing their hearts under the influence of education or religion, by relieving their bodies from disease, suffering or constraint, by assisting to establish themselves for life, or by erecting or maintaining pub |