27 Atlantic Cotton Mills v. Indian Orchard Mitts, 147 Mass. 268.

28 Le Due v. Moore, 111 N. C. 516. See notes 3, 8 and 9, Sec. 106, supra. But perhaps these cases are better authorities upon the proposition that an agent may act in a particular transaction wherein he is interested, if the bank ratifies it, and his knowledge, however acquired, where he acts for the corporation, is imputable to the corporation, whether the person treating with the corporation had notice of his lack of knowledge or not. The case of Graham v. Orange Co. Nat. Bank, 35 Atl. R. 1053, can only be considered sound on the theory that the officer with the adverse interest acted for himself and some other officer acted for the bank.

where executed by the bank in favor of its officers, yet the fact that a director was an indorser on a note is no notice to any one that the note was for his accommodation.12 This question of notice may be looked at from the standpoint as to whether the officer will be charged in his own private affairs with notice of facts known to the bank. The rule on principle would be that he could be charged with notice only of those facts as to which he had knowledge, and it would seem that this knowledge ought to be either actual or notice of such facts as it would be negligent in him to overlook.13 A final caution should be added in these matters of representation of a bank by its officers, and that is, to look only to the facts of the case and the decision; the reasoning and remarks of the court are too often not valuable.

1 See Sec. Sec. 107,108, ante.

2 Savannah Bank v. Hartridge, 75-Ga. 149; First Nat. Bank v. Gifford, 47 Iowa, 575. But it must be remembered that the fact of the agent's adverse intent does not make him a wrong-doer. The transaction must be one where he is using the bank for his own benefit.

3 This result follows from the power of the agent to act in regard to a matter within the scope of his authority". See United States Nat. Bank v. First Nat. Bank, 79 Fed. R 296; Chemical Nat. Bank v. Armstrong, 76 Fed. R 339.

4 American Surety Co. v. Pauly, 72 Fed. R 470, 38 U. S. App. 254;

Hummel v. Bank of Monroe, 75 Iowa, 689. But if the wrongful act was perpetrated for the benefit of the bank, the bank has notice. Merchants' Nat Bank v. Tracy, 77 Hun, 443. Compare City of New York v. Tenth Nat. Bank, 111 N. Y. 446. 5 Constant v. University, 111 N. Y. 604.

6 First Nat. Bank v. Blake, 60 Fed. R 78; Black Hills Nat. Bank v. Kellogg, 4 S. D. 312; Nesbit v. Macon Bank, 12 Fed. R. 686; First Nat. Bank v. Babbidge, 160 Mass. 563; Tilden v. Bernard, 43 Mich. 376.

7Le Due v. Moore, 111 N. C. 516; Corcoran v. Snow Cattle Co., 151 Mass. 74; Oak Grove Cattle Co. v. Foster, 41 Pac. R 522; Atlantic Cotton Mills v. Indian Orchard

Mills, 147 Mass. 268. See Sec. 106. ante. In 29 Am. Law Rev. 523, will be found an article by a well-known text writer which displays more confusion upon this subject than it is possible to find elsewhere. Every case that he states, except one or two, is capable of being fully explained, if the distinctions suggested in this section are kept clearly before the mind.

8 First Nat. Bank v. Blake, 60 Fed. R 78; Le Due v. Moore, 111 N. C. 516; National Security Bank v.Cushman, 121 Mass. 490. The case of Louisville Trust Co. v. Louisville R. Co., 75 Fed. R. 433, may be justified on the ground that there was no evidence to show the knowledge present in the mind of the president when he acted. But the court's language, general as it is, even if dictum, is erroneous.

9 Atlantic State Bank v. Savery, 82 N. Y. 291; National Bank v. Lov-ett, 21 S. W. R 825; Buffalo Co. Bank v. Sharps, 40 Neb. 123; City Bank v. Barnard, 1 Hall, 80; Lyne v. Bank of Kentucky, 5 J. J. Marsh. 545; Louisiana State Bank v. Sen-ecal, 13 La. 525.

10Innerarity v. Merchants' Nat Bank, 139 Mass. 332; Corcoran v. Snow Cattle Co., 151 Mass. 74; First

Nat Bank v. Loyhed, 28 Minn. 396; Benton v. German Am. Bank, 122 Ma 332; Wilson v. Bank, 7 Atl. R 145; Owensboro v. Daviess Co. Court, 12 S. W. R 930, 13 S. W. R 101; Washington Bank v. Lewis, 22 Pick. 24; Waynesville Bank v. Irons, 8 Fed. R 1; Third Nat. Bank v. Harrison, 10 Fed. R 243.

11 Staples v. Huron Nat Bank, 66 N W. R 314.

12 Commercial Bank v. Cunningham, 24 Pick. 270.

13 Holland v. Citizens' Sav Bank, 17 R L 87.