An officer of a bank has no right to use the bank or its funds for his private advantage, and, as we shall see in the next section, any person who has knowledge of such a fact can claim nothing against the bank from such a transaction. But without reference to the question as to who is claiming the benefit of the transaction, but simply considering the matter as a question of power in the officer as the bank agent, the rule above stated is uniform. Thus, the president of a bank

Benton v. German-American Bank, 122 Mo. 332; Oak Grove Cattle Go. v. Foster, 41 Pac. R. 522; Bank v. Blake, 60 Fed. R. 78 Owensboro v. Daviess Co. Court, 12 S. W. R. 930, 13 S. W. R. 101, seems to be contra, but is too vague to afford much light. See also Wilson v. Bank, 7 Atl. R. 145.

8 Le Duo v. Moore, I11 N. C. 516.

9 Corcoran v. Snow Cattle Co., 151 Mass. 74; Bank v. Blake, 60 Fed. R. 78. Wherever there is any presumption from the fact that others are acting for the bank and that the particular officer is not, this rule Is very proper.

10 Le Due v. Moore, 111 N. C. 516, overruling on this very point, Commercial Bank v. Burgwyn, 110 N. C 267.

11 See statement of facts in both cases, cited in note 9, supra. In accordance with the rules in this section, Niblack v. Cosier, 80 Fed. R. 596; Broston v. Penniman, 97 Ga. 527; Detroit Motor Co. v. Third Nat Bank, 69 N. W. R. 726; Withers v. Lafayette Co. Bank, 67 Mo. App. 115, and Leonard v. Lattimer, 67 Mo. App, 138, are correct cannot appropriate the bank's note to pay his own debt,1 nor can the cashier2 or the president bind by contract the bank in a transaction where the bank is not interested;3 but of course the bank may ratify such a transaction,4 or permit it by the conduct of its governing body,5 which is ratification in advance, if the phrase be permissible. An agent authorized to certify checks cannot bind the bank by certifying his own check or indorsing his own note,8 or by issuing certificates of deposit to himself,7 or by certifying checks when the drawer has no funds,8 or by paying checks of a creditor of the president when the creditor has no funds in the bank,9 nor by paying his own debts with the bank's funds without authority,10 nor by a promise to pay a check if sent through the clearing-house regardless of the presence in the bank of funds to meet the check,11 nor by drawing drafts to use in his private business,12 nor by drawing drafts to cover his own embezzlement,13 nor by entering into a conspiracy to swindle creditors.14 In all such cases if the bank is to be held it must be on grounds of ratification, or of a course of dealing permitting the acts, or of estoppel by the retention of benefits received by the acts, or because the party claiming under the contract is recognized by the law to be in good faith, through lack of notice and the payment of value, or the suffering of a detriment on the faith of the act.15

1 Rhodes v. Webb, 24 Minn. 292.

2 State Nat. Bank v. Newton Nat. Bank, 66 Fed. R. 691, 32 U. S. App. 52.

3 Kennedy v. Otoe Co. Nat. Bank, 7 Neb. 59.

4 Winton v. Little, 94 Pa. 64. 5 Martin v. Webb, 110 U. S. 7.

6 Claflin v. Farmers' Bank, 2 Am. Law Reg. (N. S.) 92; West St. Louis Sav. Bank v. Shawnee Co. Bank, 95 U. S. 557.

7 Lee v. Smith, 80 Mo. 304

8 Clarke Nat. Bank v. Albion Bank, 52 Barb. 592; Pope v. Bank of Albion, 57 N. Y. 126.

9 Dowd v. Stephenson, 105 N. C. 467.

110 Christie v. Foster, 61 Fed. R. 551.

11 Morse v. Mass. Nat. Bank, Fed. Cas. No. 9857. It would not bind the bank if authorized, unless in writing, because if there were no funds it would be within the statute of frauds.

12 Anderson v. Kissam, 35 Fed. R. 699; Lamson v. Beard, 94 Fed. R. 30; United States v. Johnson, Fed. Cas. No. 15,483; Ruohs v. Third Nat Bank, 94 Tenn. 57.

13 Faneuil Hall Bank v. Bank of Brighton, 16 Gray, 534 The bank would be held to a bona fide holder.

14 Johnston-Fife Hat Co. v. Nat Bank of Guthrie, 4 OkL 17.