(x) Davis v Browsher, 5 T. R 488; Scott v Franklin. 15 East, 428; Bk. of Metrop v. N. E. Bank. 1 How. 234; 17 Pet. 174 In this case the court say. in reference to the general doctrine of the banker's lien. Taney, C. J., giving the opinion of the court: "It has long been settled, that wherever a banker has advanced money to another, he has a lien upon all the paper securities which are in his hands, for the amount of his genable securities without indorsement * by the pledgor, (y)

1 Bankers have a general lien on all securities deposited by a customer in their hands as bankers, unless express circumstances show an implied contract to the contrary. London Chartered Bank of Australia v White, 4 App Cas 413 While a banker has a lien for advances made on the security of share certificates and other property deposited with him, he has no general lien on boxes and contents deposited with him for safe custody, the keys to which are retained and to which constant access is had Leese v Martin, L R 17 Eq. 224; nor does the lien arise where securities are deposited with him for a special purpose. Brandao v. Barnett, 12 C. & F 787 Case v. Bank, 100 U. S. 446. See Zell v. German Sav. Inst 4 Mo. App. 401. - K.

Where a negotiable note is indorsed to a banker by a payee, as collateral security for one only of several demands for which he is liable, the banker has no lien on such note as security for any other demand against the indorser. (z)

* It seems that one who is a bank director may confer a valid lien upon negotiable paper, intrusted to him by another for the purpose of getting it discounted for that person's benefit, but fraudulently pledged to the bank by him, as security for his own indebtedness; the bank not being affected by a director's knowledge in a transaction where' he does not act in his official capacity, (zz)

An insurance broker's lien upon a policy of insurance effected by him, extends not only to his demand for the premium paid by him on that particular policy, but also to bis general claim on account of premiums and other insurance payments., against the party for whose benefit the policy is effected; and to the money which he may receive on account of a loss under the policy, (a) eral balance, unless such securities were delivered to him under a particular agreement." The cape itself is one of some interest, as involving the question of lien upon securities that are deposited merely for collection. The Bank of the Metropolis at Washington, I). C, and the Commonwealth Bank of Boston, having for a long time had a system of mutual collections, whereby each party received from the other notes and other com mercial paper for collection, which were treated as the property of the bank sending it to the other, the proceeds being cred ited and the cost and expenses charged to the bank so sending, and the accounts between the two Institutions, from time to time, adjusted upon these principles. The New England Bank of Boston, in the latter part of the year 1837, intrusted a number of drafts and notes about to fall due, and payable in the vicinity of Washington, to the Commonwealth Bank, for collection, they being duly indorsed by the cashier of the New England Bank, payable to the order of the cashier of the Commonwealth Bank. The latter officer indorsed them, payable to the order of the cashier of the Bank of the Metropolis, and sent them forward to that bank for collection, without any explanation as to the ownership of them. In the month of January, 1838. the Commonwealth Bank failed, owing the Bank of the Metropolis the sum of $2,900. on account of collections made for that bank, in Boston and vicinity. The New England Bank claimed the amount of the proceeds of the paper collected by the Bank of the Metropolis, which claim the latter bank resisted, on the ground that it had a lien upon the paper and its proceeds, for the amount owed it by the Commonwealth Bank. The Circuit Court for the District of Columbia, decided against the Bank of the Metropolis, and the case was carried to the Supreme Court on writ of error, where the judg ment of the Circuit Court was reversed, and the lien of the Bank of the Metropolis sustained. The court held, that, by the indorsement of the notes and bills in such a form as to make them prima farie the property of the Commonwealth Bank, the New England Bank contributed to give to the corporation which proved insolvent, credit with the plain tiff in error, and to induce the misplaced confidence which had occasioned the loss in question.

(y) Ex parte Hustler, 3 Mad. 117.

(z) Neponset Bk. v. Leland, 5 Met 259.

(zz) Wash. Bank u. Lewis, 22 Pick. 24

(a) Whitehead v. Vaughan, 1 Cooke, 566. Vaughan, an insurance broker, having procured insurance for a merchant, and having transferred the policy to his employer, subsequently obtained possession of the same for the ostensible purpose of collecting a partial loss which

But it is not available for the general balance due him by one who employs him to effect that insurance, where he knows that the employer is the agent of another party for that transaction, even though a larger balance be due from that party to the agent, (b)

It was also decided in a later case, that where the insurance broker who is employed by an agent is falsely informed by his employer that the property is his own, and acts upon that information in good faith, his general lien for the balance due him by the fraudulent agent will not attach, as against the true owner, (c) But later authorities reverse this decision, and give * the broker his general lien against the owner for the balance due by the agent (d) We are inclined to question the justice of the principle involved in these later decisions; for it virtually gives to a creditor a lien upon property in which the debtor has no interest, for an expenditure not made upon that property; and makes the owner thereof responsible for debts of his agent, that were not contracted for his benefit, or by his authority. As the general lien here asserted results from the usage of trade, to sustain this principle it would be necessary to show that custom authorizes an agent to commit his principal beyond the extent of the authority given to him, by fraud Such a custom, if shown to exist, would doubtless be pronounced by a court to be unreasonable and unjust, and therefore bad in law. as in the case of warehousemen claiming by custom to hold the goods of third parties, for the debts of those depositing them, (e) The opinion expressed by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, as to the want of authority in an agent effecting a policy in his own had accrued under it, but really with a view to holding it as security for the general balance which his employer owed him on account of premiums, before the partial loss was adjusted, the merchant became bankrupt; and after the broker had collected the amount due on the policy, the assignees of the bank rupt demanded the money The defend-ant set off what he had received, in the general account with the bankrupt, and paid the balance into court Upon the question whether the defendant was entitled to this set-off, it was argued that the debt became due from the defendant to the assignees upon his receipt of the amount from the underwriters, which was after the bankruptcy, and therefore could not be set off: that the defendant had no lien but for the premium on that particular policy; that having once parted with the policy, he lost his lien upon it, which did not revive by his subsequently regaining possession Lord Mansfield decided that the money received was an item of the mutual account; that there was a general lien and that the lien revived when the policy again came into the hands of the broker, and Buller, J, concurred in the opinion, saying that he considered it a settled point that there was a general lien on policies in the hands of the insurance broker. McKenzie v Nevins, 9 Shepl. 13S.