Although acting without large compensation, a bank director assumes individual liabilities which may prove costly under conditions of adversity. As in the case of any other corporation, the director of a bank must exercise an ordinary degree of care in the general administration of the institution. Naturally, the director of a corporate organization cannot be expected to undertake personally the details of actual management, and these duties must necessarily be delegated to officers and other agents. However, directors of a bank have been held individually liable for such acts as neglecting affairs, assenting to excessive loans, and publishing false reports. One director absented himself from board meetings for five years, during which time the business was grossly mishandled by the officers. The court, therefore, adjudged the director fully responsible, since he had not exercised reasonable care and diligence. A similar view was taken in the case of a bank in which it was the practice to grant officers loans unwarranted in amount. The Comptroller's office brought these facts to the attention of the board of directors, but no action was taken, with the result that the bank finally became insolvent and the directors were judged liable for the irregularities. Damages have also been collected by a person who had purchased bank stock on the strength of a statement showing the financial condition of the institution. In this case, the director suffered loss for lending his name to a report containing false items. In general, both state and national laws are quite stringent in fixing the liabilities of bank directors, and the courts in recent years have placed a broad construction upon these obligations. Undoubtedly this attitude has led directors of banks to exercise a supervision more stringent than that applied in other corporations, and so bank failures during the past decade have been materially lessened.