We have in the preceding sections noticed the result of acts of unauthorized banking as between other parties than the bank and the state. How far the state may go in forfeiting the charter of the bank for illegal banking in quo warranto or in actions in the nature of quo warranto will be considered later in this work.1 The statutes often prescribe a criminal responsibility for illegal acts by the various officers of the bank. This subject will be considered in connection with officers.2 There have been statutes of various states which impose a penalty upon individuals for illegal banking, and in other cases define the conduct as a crime. The cases will be found referred to in the note below.3

Transp. Co. v. Pullman's Car Co., 139 U. S. 24, 59, and in McCormick v. Market Nat Bank, 165 U. S 538, 549. In Jacksonville Ry. Co. v. Hooper, 160 U. S. 514, 524, the principle is correctly applied as to an innocent act ultra vires, but put upon a slightly different ground than the one above.

7 1 Thompson on Corp. 416; Medill v. Collier, 16 Ohio St 599; Seeber-ger v. McCormick, 178 HI 404, 73 I11 App. 87, although in the latter case a corporation was formed.

1 See Sec. 319 et seq., post

2 See Sec. 81 et seq., post

3 State v. Williams, 8 Tex. 255; Williams v. State, 23 Tex. 264; State v. Presbury, 13 Mo. 342; Brown v. State, 11 Ohio, 276; Commonwealth v. Scott, 4 Rand. 143; Mills v. State, 23 Tex. 295; Burkett v. Lanata, 15 La. Ann. 337; People v. Bartow, 6 Cow. 290; People v. Brewster, 4 Wend. 498; People v. Doty, 80 N. Y. 225; Commonwealth v. Sponsler, 16 Pa. Co. Ct R 116; State v. Scougal, 8 & Dak 55.