The power of a banking corporation to enact by-laws, whether the right is granted by the charter or is used as an inherent power, does not differ from the rules in regard thereto governing other corpora-

7 Atlantic Bank v. Harris, 118 Mass. 147.

8 Western Res. Bank v. Mclntire, 40 Ohio St 52a tions.1 But certain implied limitations arise from the charter or general law. A national bank which is forbidden by law from loaning on the security of its own shares cannot create a lien in its own favor upon the shares of its stockholders.2 The same rule applies to state banks similarly restricted.3 The passage of such a law repeals a by-law creating the lien, although the by-law was legal when made.4 The rules governing the relations of depositors to a savings bank as affected by the by-laws of the bank will be found discussed under a later chapter on Savings Banks.5

1 See 2 Cook on Corp., sec. 492 et seq.; 1 Thompson on Corp., sees 66-105; 4 Thompson on Corp., sec. 5380. See also Wheeler v. Frontier Bank, 23 Ma 308; In re Reciprocity Bank, 22 N. Y. 9; In re Oliver Lee Bank, 21 N. Y. 9. Compare United States Trust Co. v. Fire Ins. Co., 18 N. Y. 199; Lowry v. Inman, 46 N. Y. 119; Marr v. Bank, 4 Lea, 578; Owen v. Purdy, 12 Ohio St 73; Sherman v. Smith, 1 Black, 587. A charter was altered to impose a stockholder's liability. Hirshfield v. Bopp, 50 N. Y. Supp. 676. And it applies to debts thereafter incurred. Barnes v. Arnold, 51 N. Y. Supp. 1109. A by-law that requires the consent of the directors to a transfer of the stock is void. McNulta v. Corn Belt Bank, 164 I11. 427.

2 One case holds squarely that a bank is a corporation charged with public duties (Mechanics' Bank v. Debolt, 1 Ohio St 591; reversed, 18 How. 380); but it can choose its de-positors (Thacher v. State Bank, 5 Sandf. 121), and its charter is a contract. See Planters' Bank v. Sharp, 6 How. 301; Claghorn v. Cullen, 1& Pa. 133; People v. Manhattan Co., 9 Wend. 351.