In the case of commercial paper or other property of the bank, whenever it comes into the hands of a third party who had no notice of the corporate officer's lack of authority, and who is a holder for value, the bank is bound by the transaction.1 But whenever the paper on its face shows that in the transaction there must have been a want of authority, such fact gives full notice to every one who deals with the paper,2 such as drafts of a bank in favor of the president of the bank and signed by himself as president, erasing the word "cashier,"3 or postdated checks certified before they could be cashed.4 And it is stated that those having notice of the officer's want of authority, where there is a want of authority, by knowing the circumstances of the act cannot claim as against the bank,8 if the validity of the act depends solely upon the question of power and not of ratification or authorization.

15 See the succeeding section.

1 Faneuil Bank v. Bank of Brighton, 16 Gray, 534; Phillips v. Merc. Nat Bank, 140 N. Y, 556; Goshen Nat Bank v. State, 141 N. Y. 379; Blair v. First Nat Bank. 2 Flip. Ill; Houghton v. First Nat. Bank, 26 Wis. 663; Central Trust Co. v. Cook Co. Nat Bank, 15 Fed. R 885; Farmers' Bank v. Butchers' Bank, 16 N. Y. 125. See Dime Sav. Inst v. Allentown Bank, 65 Pa. 116.

2 Anderson v. Kissam, 35 Fed. R 699; Clarke Nat Bank v. Albion Bank, 52 Barb. 592; Pope v. Bank of Albion, 57 N. Y. 126. The identity of name is notice. Claflin v. Farmers' Bank, 2 Am. Law Reg. (N. S.) 92; Lee v. Smith, 84 Mo. 304. Contra, Central Trust Co. v. Cook Co. Nat Bank, 15 Fed. R 885. But in this latter case it might be said that some officer had power to indorse. The case is hardly sound. See West St. Louis Bank v. Shawnee Co. Bank, 95 U. S. 557. One court puts forward the queer idea that such an indorsement is merely voidable. Preston v. Cutter, 64 N. H. 461. It is void.

3 Lamson v. Beard, 94 Fed. R 30.

4 Clarke Nat Bank v. Albion Bank, 52 Barb. 592.

5 Bank of E. Tenn. v. Hook, 1 Cold. 156. One case, Williams v. Dorrier, 135 Pa. 445, is decided on the basis of uti possidetis. It is partly right and partly wrong. Breyfogle v. Walsh, 71 Fed. R 898, is rightly decided by reason of the fact that the parties knew the lack of authority. The reasons given by the court for its judgment are absurd.