At end of Sec. 249 (p. 259), add:
This case1 was subsequently reversed because there was no evidence that the accomplishment of any act authorized by the power of attorney to the agent, necessitated the indorsement and transfer of a check, and that at the most, whether indorsement and transfer were necessitated by the acts authorized, was a question of fact. Where the power of attorney does not give express authority to indorse checks, the agent does not possess it unless it inheres in the authority expressly given to do other acts, and this is not the case unless it is reasonably necessary to effectuate the objects of the agency, and therefore within the intent of the principal, and it must appear clearly that the accomplishment of the acts expressly authorized required the exercise of the authority to indorse. "The express authority to receive negotiable paper does not imply the power to indorse it."2
1 Porges v. U. S. Mtgc. & Trust To. 203 N. Y. 181; 96 N. E. 424 (1911).
'2 Citing Hnltsinger v. National Corn Exchange Bank, 1 Sweeny 64; affirmed by the Court of Appeals, 3 All). L. J. 305; National City Bank of Brooklyn v. Wcstcott, 118 N. Y. 463; Rossiter v. Rossiter, 8 Wend. 494; Filley v. Gilman, 2 J. & S. 339; Jackson Paper Mfg. Co. v. Commercial Nat. Bank, 199 111. 151.