The law of bills, notes and checks . ough his conduct or course ofdealing may bring to the notice of the bank circumstances which wouldenable it to know that he is violating his trust. Such circumstancesdo not impose upon the bank the duty, or give it the right, to institutean inquiry into the conduct of its customer, in order to protect thosefor whom it may hold the fund, but between whom and the bank thereis no privity. 97 Tex. 576, 80 S. W. 606, 65 L. R. A. 820, 104 Am. St. Rep. 885. The addition of the word Trustee to the name of a person is noticeof a trust and calls for inquiry and exami
The law of bills, notes and checks . ough his conduct or course ofdealing may bring to the notice of the bank circumstances which wouldenable it to know that he is violating his trust. Such circumstancesdo not impose upon the bank the duty, or give it the right, to institutean inquiry into the conduct of its customer, in order to protect thosefor whom it may hold the fund, but between whom and the bank thereis no privity. 97 Tex. 576, 80 S. W. 606, 65 L. R. A. 820, 104 Am. St. Rep. 885. The addition of the word Trustee to the name of a person is noticeof a trust and calls for inquiry and examination, and a person taking anassignment of a note made payable to the order of a third person as trusteeis put upon inquiry as to all the terms and conditions under which thenote was executed and is presumed to have full knowledge thereof. Geyser v. Stark, 106 Fed. 558; 53 L. R. A. 684; Marbury v. Ehlen,72 Md. 206; McLeod v. Despain, 46 Or. 526; Henshaw v. Bank, 239 ; 88 N. E. 214. 154 NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS LAW MECHi9J\riCS. Boswell, as the agent of plaintiffs, had charge of certain premisesknown as Glass Buildings; he deposited the rents collected to the creditof a bank account kept in his name as Agent Glass Buildings. Inpayment of a debt which BosweU owed defendant, as collateral for whichthe latter held certain securities, he received a check on the bank signedby Boswell, with the words Agt. Glass Buildings following his signature,and on receipt surrendered the securities. The check was paid by thebank and charged to said account. Boswell had no authority to so use thefund. In an action to recover the amount thereof, there was no evidencetending to raise any question as to defendants good faith, except suchreceipt of the check. Held, that the form of the check was sufficient toindicate to defendant the existence of an agency, and to put him on inquiryas to the agents authority to so use the money. Gerard v. McCormick, 130 N. Y. 261; see also, Carpenter v. Fams-wort
Size: 2516px × 993px
Photo credit: © The Reading Room / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookauth, bookcentury1900, bookdecade1910, bookidcu31924018845499
