Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/185

 PART II.] ACTS WITHIN THE CORPORATE POWERS. [§ 193. in Minor v. Mechanics' Bank, 1 " The officers of the bank are held out to the public as having authority to act, according to the general usage, practice, and course of their business ; and their acts within the scope of such usage, practice, and course of business would, in general, bind the bank in favor of third persons possessing no other knowledge." 2 Further, from the circumstance that a corporate agent or Pa. St. 246; Great Western Ry. Co. v. Miller, 19 Mich. 305; Term. River Trans. Co. v. Kavanaugh Bros., 93 Ala. 324; S. C, 101 Ala. 1; Fulton B. <fc L. Ass'n v. Greenlea, 103 Ga. 376; Pollock v. Carolina Interstate B. & L. Ass'n, 51 S. C. 420. Station agents are presumed to have author- ity to contract for the transporta- tion of freight; and shippers are not affected with notice of limitations on their powers unless the limita- 458; Pacific R. R. Co. v. Thomas, 19 Kan. 250. Compare Louisville E. & St. L. Ry. Co. 0. McVay, 98 Iud. 391; Union Pacific Ky. Co. v. Beatty, 35 Kan. 265. But a station agent or conductor has no such authority; § 201. See, also, Insurance Co. v. McCain, 96 U. S. 84, and cases in the following notes. 1 1 Pet. 46, 70. 2 Thus, where a person pays a debt over the bank-counter to an officer tions are conveyed to the public in a who was paying and receiving teller manner authorizing the inference ' of the bank, without knowledge that that shippers are apprised of them. Pruitt v. Hannibal and St. Jo. R. R. Co., 62 Mo. 527; Harrison v. Mis- souri Pacific Ry. Co., 74 Mo. 364; Watson v. Memphis, etc., R. R. Co., 9Heisk.(Tenn. )255; Michigan South- ern & N. I. R. R. Co. ». Day, 20 111. 375. But compare Wood o. C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 59 Iowa, 196; Bur- roughs o. Norwich, etc., R. R. Co., 100 Mass. 26; Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Stults, 31 Kan. 752; Wood v. C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 59 Iowa, 196. Pas- sengers may assume that baggage- masters have authority to make all ordinary contracts and arrangements connected with the transportation of baggage. Isaacson v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 94 N. Y. 278. So general or division superintendents, or general agents of a railroad com- pany, may be presumed to have au- thority to employ a physician to at- tend an employe injured in the ser- vice of the company. Atlantic and Pac. R. R. Co. u. Reisner, 18 Kan. he is not authorized to receive money, the bank is bound by the payment. East River National Bank 13. Gove, 57 N. Y. 597. See Hotch- kiss v. Artisans 1 Bank, 2 Keyes, 564. So an agent for an insurance com- pany, authorized to take and approve risks and to insure, is authorized by general usage to allow credit for the premium. Its allowance does not impair the validity of the prelimi- nary contract to insure. Insurance Co. v. Colt, 20 Wall. 560. And a cor- poration may be held on promissory notes issued by its treasurer in ac- cordance with usage. In re Great Western Telegraph Co., 5 Biss. 363. Compare, as to treasurer's authority, Atkinson v. St. Croix MTg Co., 24 Me. 171; Stark Bank ». U. S. Pot- tery Co., 34 Vt. 144; Davis v. Rock- ingham Investment Co., 89 Va. 290. A treasurer cannot biud his corpora- tion for money borrowed by him and embezzled, when no usage or author- ity in him is shown. Craft ». South 165