with his agent's knowledge of debtor's insolvency; Bennett v. Buchan, 76 N. Y. 390, where principal was estopped by agent's knowledge that covenant was untrue; Cox v. Pearce, 112 N. Y. 641, 3 L. R. A. 564, 20 N: E. 567, where constructive notice in prior, was binding in subsequent transaction; Enos v. St. Paul etc. Ins. Co., 4 S. D. 652, 46 Am. St. Rep. 805, 57 N. W. 922, where insurance company was bound by knowledge of adjuster that insured relied on his representations; Riordan v. Britton, 69 Tex. 204, 5 Am. St. Rep. 40, 7 S. W. 53, where attaching creditor was bound by attorney's knowledge of prior levy; George v. Butler, 16 Utah, 116, 50 Pac. 1034, charging wife with notice given to husband; Easley v. Barksdale, 75 Va. 284, arguendo; dissenting opinion in Western Mtg. etc. Co. v. Ganzer, 63 Fed. 671, 11 C. C. A. 371, majority holding principal not bound by knowledge of agent as to collusive arrangement between agent and others to defraud principal.

Limited in Stanley v. Schwalby, 162 U. S. 276, 40 L. Ed. 967, 16 Sup. Ct. 763, holding client not bound by notice to attorney who passed record title, of unrecorded deed; American Surety Co. v. Pauly, 170 U. S. 155, 42 L. Ed. 985, 18 Sup. Ct. 561, where bank was not bound by false representations of president, as to cashier's honesty; Davis Improved Wrought Iron Wagon Wheel Co. v. Davis Wrought Iron Wagon Wheel Co., 22 Blatchf. 224, 20 Fed. 701, holding corporation not bound by knowledge of director contracting with it; Starr & Co. v. Galgate S. Co., 68 Fed. 243, 15 C. C. A. 366, where principal was not bound by act of agent beyond his authority; American Surety Co. v. Pauly, 72 Fed. 481, 18 C. C. A. 644; where bank was not bound by president's false representations as to cashier's honesty; Hummel v. Bank, 75 Iowa, 691, 37 N. W. 955, where bank was not bound by cashier's knowledge of his ́ own fraud; Clark v. Marshall, 62 N. H. 500, 501, where principal purchasing of agent was not charged with knowledge of agent's purpose; Henry v. Allen, 151 N. Y. 9, 36 L. R. A. 662, 45 N. E. 357, and Benedict v. Arnoux, 154 N. Y. 729, 49 N. E. 330, where principal was not charged with knowledge of agent's act in fraud of former; Societe des Mines D'Argent et Fonderies de Bingham v. Mackintosh, 5 Utah, 578, 18 Pac. 367, holding rule could not be invoked by one who knew agent was deceiving principal.

Criticised in Sooy v. State, 41 N. J. L. 400, where State was not bound by notice to member of legislative committee.

Knowledge of agent as knowledge of corporation. Note, 39 Am.
Rep. 326, 330.

Duty of agent or employee to disclose to principal or master.mat-
ters coming to his knowledge before entering, or outside scope of,
employment. Note, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 819.

Imputing to principal notice to solicitor or agent. Note, 21 E. R. C. 843, 846.

Presumption that agent has communicated his knowledge to his principal will not be entertained when it is not his duty, or would not be lawful for him to do so.

Approved in Mack v. McIntosh, 181 Ill. 644, 54 N. E. 1022, purchaser is not affected with notice to agent negotiating the purchase that vendor had sold to third party under an executory contract where agent acquired notice confidentially as attorney for vendor; Dight v. Chapman, 44 Or. 278, 65 L. R. A. 793, 75 Pac. 589, knowledge of bankruptcy proceedings acquired by cashier, which is bankrupt's creditor, is imputed to creditors of insolvent corporation, of which bankrupt is stockholder and of which cashier is receiver; Akers v. Rowan, 33 S. C. 472, 10 L. R. A. 715, 12 S. E. 172, where knowledge of attorney, obtained as attorney for another, was not imputed to client bank; Knobelock v. Germania Sav. Bank, 50 S. C. 289, 27 S. E. 972, where bank was not chargeable with its officer's knowledge in fraud for his own benefit; Melms v. Pabst, 93 Wis. 168, 57 Am. St. Rep. 907, 66 N. W. 522, where client was not bound by confidential information of attorney; American Surety Co. v. Pauly, 72 Fed. 481, 18 C. C. A. 644, holding bank not bound by president's false representations as to cashier's honesty; Hummel v. Bank of Monroe, 75 Iowa, 692, 37 N. W. 956, where bank was not bound by cashier's knowledge of his own fraud.

Distinguished in Zang v. Adams, 23 Colo. 410, 58 Am. St. Rep. 251, 48 Pac. 510, holding company liable for fraudulent representation of its agent.

Notice to agent is notice to principal, as to knowledge acquired by agent prior to, and present in his mind at the time he is acting as such, if it be of such a nature that it may be communicated to principal.

Approved in Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Courtney, 186 U. S. 362, 46 L. Ed. 1202, 22 Sup. Ct. 841, holding surety company not relieved from liability by ordinary employee's conniving at acts of bonded employee; American Bonding Co. v. Spokane etc. Loan Society, 130 Fed. 741, 65 C. C. A. 121, knowledge of president of loan society that secretary was, at time of indemnity policy, indebted to company is not breach of warranty in policy that secretary was not so indebted; In re Pease, 129 Fed. 455, where trust company, through its attorney, who also acted for certain creditors of merchant, who was actually insolvent, loaned merchant money on borrower's stock, with which certain creditors paid in full, mortgage was void as preference under Bankruptcy Act, § 67e; Gustafson v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 128 Fed. 92, holding plaintiff in suit for injuries from railway collision bound by knowledge of attorney that company had leased road to other company; Bank of Overton v. Thompson, 118 Fed. 801, 56 C. C. A. 554, holding bank not chargeable with cashier's acts, transacting business in own as well as bank's be

half, under circumstances rendering disclosure improbable; Schollay v. Moffit-West Drug Co., 17 Colo. App. 134, 67 Pac. 184, applying rule where agent of seller at time of sale to another agent was advised of latter agent's lack of authority to purchase; McClelland v. Saul, 113 Iowa, 210, 84 N. W. 1035, charging landlord with notice of chattel mortgage upon tenant's property acknowledged before landlord's agent; Schwend v. Boyce, 94 Md. 518, 51 Atl. 47, holding principal bound where agent purchasing property had knowledge of lien; Equitable Sureties Co. v. Sheppard, 78 Miss. 234, 28 South. 845, holding mortgagee not acquiring notice of defect by employing attorney who seven years previous conducted proceedings for sale of land; Fowler v. Randall, 99 Mo. App. 412, 73 S. W. 933, holding in action against druggist for negligently selling morphine, knowledge of girl purchasing same imputed to deceased; Bangor etc. Ry. Co. v. American Bangor Slate Co., 203 Pa. St. 12, 52 Atl. 42, holding knowledge of president of corporation acquired in other transactions not notice to corporation; Deering v. Holcomb, 26 Wash. 597, 67 Pac. 243, holding attorney's knowledge of defendant's fraud sufficient notice to client to set in operation statute of limitations; McIntire v. Pryor, 173 U. S. 52, 43 L. Ed. 612, 19 Sup. Ct. 357, holding principal bound by fraud of agent in the transaction; Goodenough v. Warren, 5 Sawy. 502, Fed. Cas. 5534, where purchaser was bound by agent's knowledge of unrecorded deed; Brown v. Jefferson etc. Bank, 19 Blatchf. 336, 9 Fed. 274, holding client bound by knowledge of attorney as to another client's affairs; Beecher v. Gillespie, 6 Ben. 366, Fed. Cas. 1224, where client was bound by notice to attorney, though he did not recur to the knowledge; In re Douglass, 11 Fed. 405, where client was charged with knowledge of attorney, obtained in other proceedings against same bankrupt; Brown v. Cranberry Iron etc. Co., 72 Fed. 101, 18 C. C. A. 444, where exclusion of evidence that knowledge was so present in agent's mind was error; Louisville Trust Co. v. Louisville etc. R. Co., 75 Fed. 469, 22 C. C. A. 378, holding bank charged with knowledge of its president, obtained in another capacity; City Nat. Bank v. Jeffries, 73 Ala. 195, holding client bound by knowledge of attorney as to other clients' dealings; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Flemming, 65 Ark. 63, 67 Am. St. Rep. 906, 39 L. R. A. 793, 44 S. W. 467, where, in absence of proof that knowledge was present in agent's mind, principal was not bound; Christie v. Sherwood, 113 Cal. 530, 531, 45 Pac. 821, where bank was bound by notice to cashier, acquired in prior transaction; Armstrong v. Abbott, 11 Colo. 223, 17 Pac. 519, where company was not bound by previously acquired knowledge of director, it not being present in his mind; Campbell v. First Nat. Bank, 22 Colo. 189, 43 Pac. 1011, where notice to bank president, prior to transaction, was notice to bank; First Nat. Bank v. Campbell,

2 Colo. App. 285, 30 Pac. 362, where notice to president was not notice to bank, under circumstances; German-American Mut. Life Assn. v. Farley, 102 Ga. 739, 740, 29 S. E. 622, 623, holding insurance company bound by representations to agent; Snyder v. Partridge, 138 Ill. 185, 32 Am. St. Rep. 137, 29 N. E. 854, where purchaser was bound by agent's knowledge that land was mortgaged by mistake; Yerger v. Barz, 56 Iowa, 82, 8 N. W. 771, where knowledge not being present in agent's mind, principal was not bound; Lebanon Sav. Bank v. Hallenbeck, 29 Minn. 326, 13 N. W. 147, where client was bound by knowledge of attorney, acquired before the agency; Constant v. University, 111 N. Y. 609, 7 Am. St. Rep. 771, 2 L. R. A. 737, 19 N. E. 632, where, in absence of proof that such knowledge was present, principal was not bound; Cox v. Pearce, 112 N. Y. 641, 3 L. R. A. 564, 20 N. E. 567, where principal was bound by constructive notice received in prior transaction; Dupree v. Virginia etc. Ins. Co., 93 N. C. 240, holding company bound by agent's valuation; Pennoyer v. Willis, 26 Or. 12, 46 Am. St. Rep. 601, 36 Pac. 571, where principal was bound by such knowledge of attorney passing title; Morrison v. Bausemer, 32 Gratt. 232, holding principal unaffected in absence of proof that such knowledge was present in agent's mind; Brothers v. Bank of Kaukauna, 84 Wis. 395, 36 Am. St. Rep. 935, 54 N. W. 791, holding bank bound by cashier's knowledge as to mortgagor's competency; Red River Land etc. Co. v. Smith, 7 N. D. 245, 74 N. W. 197, holding notice not imputable to corporation where given to its officers long previously; Hoover v. Wise, 91 U. S. 310, 23 L. Ed. 394, holding attorney for collection company was not agent of creditor; Hummel v. First Nat. Bank, 2 Colo. App. 579, 32 Pac. 75, where one sending drafts for collection was not bound by knowledge of collecting bank; Fairfield Sav. Bank v. Chase, 72 Me. 230, 39 Am. Rep. 322, arguendo; Melms v. Pabst, 93 Wis. 167, 57 Am. St. Rep. 906, 66 N. W. 522, holding client not charged with knowledge of attorney, obtained confidentially.

Limited in Satterfield v. Malone, 35 Fed. 453, 1 L. R. A. 39, where, under Pennsylvania law, principal was not charged with knowledge of agent not obtained in course of the business; Little etc. Min. Co. v. Little etc. Min. Co., 11 Colo. 240, 7 Am. St. Rep. 240, 17 Pac. 768, where mining company was bound by knowledge of superintendent as to boundary; State v. Sitlington, 51 Mo. App. 258, where notice of unrecorded chattel mortgage did not estop subsequent mortgagee; Arrington v. Arrington, 114 N. C. 172, 19 S. E. 358, where client was not bound by knowledge of attorney who merely examined title.

Distinguished in Washington Securities Co. v. United States, 194 Fed. 65, 114 C. C. A. 79, holding grantee of land which government had been induced to homestead by false proof that it was chiefly valu

able for agriculture, was not bona fide purchaser, and patent was subject to cancellation.

Criticised in Wittenbrock v. Parker, 102 Cal. 103, 41 Am. St. Rep. 178, 24 L. R. A. 199, 36 Pac. 377, where constructive notice to attorney did not bind client; Sooy v. State, 41 N. J. L. 400, where State was not bound by notice to member of committee of legislature.

Notice to agent as notice to principal. Note, 24 Am. St. Rep. 228, 230, 232.

Notice to attorney as notice to client. Note, 57 Am. St. Rep. 916; 3 Ann. Cas. 442.

Knowledge of servant or agent acquired before becoming such as imputable to master or principal. Note, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 97, 98.

Where distilled spirits, forfeited under revenue laws, are mixed with other distilled spirits belonging to same person, but not forfeited, the government is entitled to its portion of the result.

Approved in Wright v. Ellwood Ivins Tube Co., 128 Fed. 463, holding where tube company mingled own tubes with tubes on which agents had lien unless own tubes identified lien extended to all.

Confusion of goods resulting from mistake or accident.
Cas. 1913E, 698.

Note, Ann.

11 Wall. 369-378, 20 L. Ed. 172, FIRST NAT. BANK OF SOUTH BEND v. LANIER.

National banks are forbidden, by currency act of 1864, to loan or discount on their own capital stock as security, and may not become holders of such stock, except when necessary to prevent loss on antecedent debt.

Approved in Scott v. Abbott, 160 Fed. 579, 87 C. C. A. 475, holding increase of stock made by false affidavits has no effect on validity of stock; Battey v. Eureka Bank, 62 Kan. 390, 63 Pac. 439, upholding bank's lien upon stock; Buffalo German Ins. Co. v. Third Nat. Bank, 162 N. Y. 170, 171, 173, 56 N. E. 523, 524, holding national bank not entitled to equitable lien upon own shares transferred by debtor to bona fide holder; Goodbar v. City Nat. Bank, 78 Tex. 475, 14 S. W. 855, holding that bank had no lien on shareholder's stock for advances; Wallace v. Hood, 89 Fed. 13, holding bank cannot withdraw stock; Hagar v. Union Nat. Bank, 63 Me. 512, where bank was given lien on dividends declared; Nicollet Nat. Bank v. City Bank, 38 Minn. 87, 8 Am. St. Rep. 645, 35 N. W. 579, construing similar provision of State statute.

Limited in Hagar v. Union Nat. Bank, 63 Me. 514, sustaining attachment lien, favor of bank, on shares of its own capital stock; Bohmer