The cashier is the general executive officer of the bank. He is the general agent of the bank in dealing with its customers, and the general rule resulting from his situation is that his contractual acts bind the bank, unless they are contrary to law or to what stands for the bank's charter or to public policy.1 He is not the agent of the board of directors, but of the bank itself.2 His general powers are not affected by statutes or charters which require the agreements or contracts of the bank to be executed in a certain way.3 In spite of such statutes he may sign and issue checks of his bank upon another bank.4 lie has power to borrow money for the bank when the act is done in the usual course of business, but not otherwise,5 and he has power to certify checks upon the bank.6 He has power to transfer the bank's paper by indorsing it,7 and he has power to receive paper for collection and to do all acts proper in making the collection.8 It is one of the usual duties of the cashier to transfer stock on the books of the bank,9 and the bank is bound by his wrongful refusal to make a transfer,10 just as it is bound by his transfer even in a case where the bank lost its lien by the transfer and the cashier was a member of the firm to which the stock was transferred.11 He may extend the time of payment upon the bank's paper,12 and he may bind the bank by his statements made at the time of selling bills and notes sold by the bank.13 He has power to employ special counsel to collect a claim for the bank.14 And if he receives checks signed in blank by a customer, who desires to go abroad and leaves the signed checks with the cashier to dispose of as she should direct, and if, after the customer has returned, he fraudulently fills up one of the checks and draws and appropriates the money obtained upon it from the bank, the bank cannot claim such money as against the customer.15 But a large number of acts have been held to be not within the scope of his general authority. He has no power to transfer judgments of the bank or to dispose of its property other than its paper;16 he cannot buy real estate for or sell the real estate of the bank,17 nor may he mortgage its real estate ;18 but he may properly acknowledge an authorized deed of the bank.19 If authorized to borrow money out of the usual course of business he may do so, and the bank is liable even though he misappropriates the money.20 But he cannot give the bank's note to the president to enable that officer to pay his own debt. Such an act does not release the maker of the note.21 He cannot make a contract in the bank's name for transferring money for the government;22 he cannot compromise or settle the claims of the bank,23 or release its claims,24 unless authorized so to do by the rules and usages of the business,25 or in payment of the bank's claim, when he may do all acts required to complete the payment;26 he has no power to make purchases for the bank not in the line of acquiring bankable securities;27 he has no power to assign the bank's property unless it be in the usual course of business.28 It was held in one case that he had no power to pledge the assets of the bank to secure an antecedent debt,29 and in another that he had no power to make acceptances at all;30 certainly he has no power to make accommodation acceptances,31 except of course to a bona fide holder; he has no general power to receive special deposit of papers.32 It was held in one case that he had no power to make an answer to a garnishment.33 He cannot bind the bank by signing its name to an indemnity bond given upon an execution in the bank's favor;34 nor has he power to bind his bank to defend a suit for a correspondent, where the correspondent is sued for negligence in collecting.35 But this prima facie power or lack of power is capable of variation by the course of dealing in a bank, as we shall hereafter see.36

13 Wheat v. Bank of Louisville, 5 S. W. R 305. But for a peculiar case where the contrary was held, see Chem. Nat. Bank v. Kohner, 85 N. Y. 189. And see Case v. Hawkins, 53 Miss. 702; Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Templeton, 40 S. W. R, 412.

14 Olney v. Chadsey, 7 R L 224; Loomis v. Fay, 24 Vt. 240.

15 Winton v. Little, 94 Pa. 64.

16 Martin v. Webb, 110 U. S. 7, as to cashier.

17Chadbourne v. Stockton Sav. Soc. 36 Pac. R 127.

18 Smith v. Lawson, 18 W. Va. 212.

1 Western Nat. Bank v. Armstrong, 152 U. S. 346, except by usage.

2 Stewart v. Armstrong, 56 Fed. R. 167, though bank was held because it got the money, although its cashier wrongfully gave the money away.

4 People's Bank v. National Bank, 101 U. S. 181, also a case of estoppel.

1 Squires v. First Nat Bank, 59 I1l. A pp. 134; Wakefield Bank v. Truesdell, 55 Barb. 602. Under a statutory system in Louisiana see Union Bank v. Bagley, 10 Rob. (La.) 45; Clinton Co. v. Kernam, 10 Rob. (La.) 176; Ried v. Powell, 10 Rob.

(La.) 98; Union Bank v. Jones, 4 La. Ann. 220.

2 Bissell v. First Nat. Bank, 69 Pa. 415.

3 See note 10 to Sec. 96, supra.

4 See note 10 to Sec. 96, supra.

5 Barnes v Ontario Bank, 19 N. Y. 152, a certificate of deposit; Don-nell v. Lewis Co. Sav. Bank, 80 Mo. 165. Compare Ballston Spa Bank v. Marine Bank, 16 Wis. 125; Eastern Township Bank v. Vernon Nat. Bank, 22 Fed. R. 186; Ringling v Kohn, 6 Mo. App. 333.

6 Merchants' Bank v. State Bank, 10 Wall 604; Farmers' Bank v. Butchers'Bank, 16 N.Y.I 25. Contra, Mussey v. Eagle Bank, 9 Met. 306.

7 Bank of Genessee v. Patchen Bank, 19 N. Y. 312; Wild v. Passa-maquoddy Bank, 3 Mason, 505, and many other cases. See Barrick v.

Austin, 21 Barb. 241. He has power to indorse paper in payment of bank's debts. Fleckner v. United States Bank, 8 Wheat. 338. But it is said he has no power to indorse to a third party except for collection. See Elliot v. Abbott, 12 N. H. 549; State Bank v. Farmers' Bank, 36 Barb. 332.

8 Warren v. Gilman, 17 Ma 360; Brudenbecker v. Lowell, 32 Barb. 9.

9 National Bank v. Watson town Bank, 105 U S. 217.

10 Case v. Citizens' Bank, 100 U. S. 446.

11 National Bank v. Watsontown Bank, 105 U. S. 217.

12 Wakefield Bank v. Truesdell, 55 Barb. 602.

13Sturges v. Bank of Circleville, 11 Ohio St. 153; Union Nat. Bank v First Nat. Bank, 45 Ohio St. 236.

14 Root v. Olcott, 42 Hun, 536, 115 N. Y. 635.

15 Daniels v. Empire City Bank, 92 Hun, 450. This seems a very close case. The decision might just as well have been that the customer constituted the cashier her agent to draw checks. Information which he received as her agent would, however, be imputable to the bank if he alone acted in cashing the check. The decision can be justified upon that ground and on no other. Compare with this case, Alpena Nat. Bank v. Greenbaum, 80 Mich. 1.

16 Holt v. Bacon, 25 Miss. 567; Asher v. Sutton, 31 Kan. 286. See Bank v. Warren, 7 Hill, 91.

17 Winson v. Lafayette Co. Bank, 18 Mo. App. 665.

18 Leggett v. New Jersey, eta Co., Saxt. 541.

19 Sheehan v. Davis, 17 Ohio St. 571.

20 Chemical Nat. Bank v. Armstrong, 56 Fed. R. 392,16 U. S. App. 465.

21 Rhodes v. Webb, 24 Minn. 292.

22 United States v. City Bank, 21 How. 356. Nor can he bind the bank by agreeing to pay usurious interest. Hanson v. Heard, 38 AtL R. 788.

23 Bank of Commerce v. Hart, 37 Neb. 197.

24 Thompson v. McKee, 5 Dak. 172; Ecker v. First Nat. Bank, 59 Md.

291; Cocheco Nat. Bank v. Harkel, 51 N. H. 116; Hodge v. First Nat Bank, 22 Grat. 51.

25 Ryan v. Dunlap, 17 111. 40.

26 Matthews v. Massachusetts Nat. Bank, Fed. Cas. No. 9286.

27 Lionberger v. Maxer, 12 Mo. A pp. 575; North Star Co. v. Steb-bins, 2 S. Dak 74. Contra, Crystal Plate Glass Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 6 Mont. 303, semble. The purchase was for a third party, and hence the case is wrong because the cashier had no such power.

28Hartford Bank v. Barry, 17 Mass. 94. See Lamb v. Cecil, 25 W. Va. 288

29 State of Tennessee v. Davis, 50 How. Pr. 447.

30 Pendleton v. Bank of Kentucky, 1 T. B. Mon. 171, under a statute.

31 Farmers' Bank v. Troy Bank, 1 Doug. 457.

32 Lloyd v. West Branch Bank, 15 Pa. 172.

33 Branch Bank v. Poe, 1 Ala. 396. But his affidavit for a capias is proper on behalf of the bank. Wachsmuth v. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 96 Mich. 426.

34 Watson v. Bennett, 12 Barb. 196.

35 First Nat. Bank v. Manufacturers' Nat. Bank, 10 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 233. But if the cashier had made the agreement as part of the consideration for receiving the draft for collection, there seems to be no reason why such an act should not be within the scope of his general authority, provided the engagement were otherwise enforceable.

36 See Sec. 105, infra.