645. Williams V. Littlefield, 12 Wend. 362. Jackson V. O'Hara, 5 Leigh, 456. Beck-

with V. Sibley, 11 Pick. 482. Clark v. Moody, 17 Mass. 145-148.

The cashier of a bank is a commercial agent so common in our own country, that

It is important to ascertain the extent of his authority. " The cashier of a bank, '

says J. Story, is, in virtute officii, generally intrusted with the notes, securities, and

other funds of the bank, and is held out by the bank as its general agent in the nego-

tiation, management, and disposal of them. Prima facie, therefore, he must be deemed

to have authority to transfer and indorse negotiable securities, held by the bank for

Its use and in its behalf No special authority for this purpose is necessary to be

proved. If any bank chooses to depart from this general course of business, it is cer-

tainly at liberty so to do ; but it is incumbent upon the bank, in such case, to show

that it has interposed a restriction, and that such restriction is known to those with

whom it is in the habit of doing business. Wild v. Bank of Passamaquoddy, 3

Mass. 505.

The cashier has no authority to bind the bank by any agreement with the makers

or indorsers of a note which is offered at bank for discount, by which the legal effect

of the written instrument is varied or controlled. It is not his duty to make such

contracts, and he has no authoritj' to bind the bank, except in the discharge of his

ordinai-y duties. Bank of the United States v. Dunn, 6 Peters, 51. Nor has he any

power to accept bills of exchange on behalf of the bank, for the accommodatiou

merely of the drawers. Farmers' and Mechanics' Bank v. Troy City Bauk, 1

Dougl. 457

A cashier cannot be protected in any known departure from his official duties,

either by the connivance or direct sanction of the board of directors ; as for exam-

ple, in the case of a usage, to allow certain customers to overdraw, and to have their

checks and notes charged up without present funds in the bank ; a usage, in other

words, to misapply the funds of the bank. No court of justice could countenance

such a practice. Minor et al. v. Mechanics' Bank of Alexandria, ] Peters, 46. The

student will find the American cases collected in a note to Mr. Dunlap's edition of

Paley on Agency, 156, Note 2.

PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. 153

Rights of Principal against Agent.

Having stated what is and who may be an agent, how and by

whom he may be nominated, let us proceed to consider the results

of such nomination as they affect,

1. The mutual rights of the agent and his principal.

2. Those of the principal and third parties.

3. Those of the agent and third parties.

Section II. — Rights of Principal against Agent.

The duties of the agent to his principal must of course depend

on the instructions contained, either expressly or impliedly, in his

appointment ; for, be those what they may, his duty is to carry

them into effect, if possible, to the letter ; (s) unless, indeed, his

obedience would involve a fraud on third persons, for no contract

can oblige a man to make himself the instrument of fraud, {t) The

appointment is his only authority ; it may be general^ to act in all

his principal's affairs, or special^ concerning some particular object;

it may be limited^ by certain instructions as to the conduct he is to

pursue, or unlimited, i. e., leaving his conduct to his own discretion ;

but this discretion should not be exercised at random, for in the

absence of specific instructions, it is his duty to pursue the accus-

tomed course of that business in which he is employed, {u) or, if

prevented by some unforeseen obstruction, at all events to give due

(s) Guerreiro v. Peile, 3 B. & A. 616.

{t) Bex-well v. Christie, Cowp. 395.

(m) Russell V. Palmer, 2 Wilson, 325. See Moore v. Mourge, Cowp. 480 ; 2 T. R.