Every bank has a well-known place of business, and, as a general rule, any act done by an agent, unless specially authorized or ratified by the bank, away from the place of business, ought not to be binding upon the bank.1 But there are exceptional cases, such as that of a cashier going to another bank to buy gold,2 or going to another place to settle business of the bank. The bank has been held for an indorsement' or an admission made by the cashier upon the street,4 and other cases exceptional in their nature are likely to happen,5 such as torts.

8 Clarke Nat. Bank v. Albion Bank, 52 Barb. 592. It would have been good if the holder was a bona fide holder. Farmers' Bank v. Butchers' Bank, 16 N. Y. 125. But the form of the check was notice in the former case.

9 Washington Nat. Bank v. Aver-ell, 2 App. D. C. 470.

10 Thatcher v. State Bank, 5 Sandf. 121. This case cannot be justified on principle. See the next note. Compare City Nat. Bank v. Mastin, 70 Tex. G43. This latter case states the sound reason why the bank should be held.

11 Manhattan Co. v. Lydig, 4 Johns. 377. Although Chancellor Kent was one of the concurring judges, this case as well as the latter seems open to objection Of course it may be said a man dealing with a bank is bound to know the powers of its different officers; but suppose an ignorant man knowing nothing of banks should come into a bank with a check or draft to collect and should go up to a window and hand his check or draft to the wrong clerk, who should tell him to indorse it to himself,the bank would be liable for the clerk's action. See note 3, supra. But if it were money or something else for deposit these cases say the bank would not be liable. It is right that the bank should be liable, because it impliedly represents its employees to be something better than mere confidence men. See the last note.

1 Sandy River Bank v. Merchants' Bank, 1 Biss. 146. The general rule is stated in Merchants' Bank v. Rudolf, 5 Neb. 527.

2 Merchants' Nat. Bank v. State Nat, Bank, 10 Wall. 604