Martin v. Webb

Citations

• 110 U.S. 7
• 3 S. Ct. 428
• 28 L. Ed. 49
• 1884 U.S. LEXIS 1648

Syllabus

<p>Contract — Estoppel—JSvidence^-Prineipal and Agent.</p> <p>1. Although a cashier o£ a bank ordinarily has no power to bind the bank except in the discharge of his customary duties ; and although the ordinary business of a bank does not comprehend a contract made by a cashier without delegation of power from the board of directors, involving the payment of money not loaned by the bankin the customary way ; nevertheless: (1.) A banking corporation, whose charter does not otherwise provide, may be represented by its cashier in transactions outside of his ordinary duties, without his authority to do so being in writing, or appearing in the records of the proceedings of the directors. (2.) His authority may be by parol and collected from circumstances or implied from the conduct or acquiescence-of the directors. (3.) It may be inferred from the general manner in which, for a period sufficiently long to establish a settled course of business, he has been suffered by the directors, without interference or inquiry, to conduct the affairs of the bank ; and (4.) When, during a series of years, or in numerous business transactions, he has been permitted, in his official capacity and without objection, to pursue a particular course of conduct, it -may be presumed, as between the bank and those who in good faith deal with it upon the basis of his authority to represent the corporation, that he has acted in conformity with instructions received from those who have the right to control its operations.</p> <p>2. That which directors ought, by proper diligence, to have known as to the general course of the bank’s business, they may be presumed to have known in any contest between the corporation and those who are justified by the •circumstances in dealing with it upon the basis of that course of business.</p>