ALBERT VS. THE SAVINGS BANK OT BALTIMORE. 409

liam G. Albert, the husband, upon an authority to Emily J. Al-
bert, dated the 10th of December, 1841, and signed by Samuel
and AlKbew D. Jones, executors.

It further appears that on the 16th day of October, in the
year 1845, this stock was transferred to the Savings Bank of
Baltimore, by the endorsation of the said trustees and filing the
original certificates in the office of the register of the city, to
secure the repayment of the sum of $5,500, loaned by the
bank to the commercial firm of Talbot Jones & Co., which
consisted at that time of the said Samuel Jones only. The
original certificates, copies of which are produced, and which
amount to the sum mentioned, certify, "that the corporation of
the city of Baltimore is indebted to Samuel Jones and Andrew
D. Jones, trustees," the several sums of money therein ex-
pressed, and upon the back of each of them an authority to
transfer to the Savings Bank of Baltimore is signed by these
parties, as such trustees. Certificates were issued to the bank
accordingly, dated on the day of the transfer by the trustees,
signed by the proper officers of the city, stating that the city
was indebted to the bank in the sums of money mentioned in
the certificate, and thus stood in the name of the bank until the
19th of January, 1847, when a note given by Talbot Jones &
Co., in renewal of the note first given for the money loaned,
not having been paid, the stock was sold by the bank for its
reimbursement, leaving in its hands a surplus of $656 90, which
is held for the use of the person legally entitled thereto.

The bank denies all knowledge of the decree of the 6th of
November, 1841, and of the trust for the female complainant;

or that the stock in question stood upon the books of the city
in the names of Samuel and Andrew D. Jones, as trustees; or
that the same was transferred to it by said trustees. It denies
that it knew at the time or knows now, by whom the transfer
was made, being satisfied with, and not looking or supposing
they were bound to look beyond what appeared upon the face
of the certifi<»tes; and it may be stated without qualification
or rwerve, that Acre is nothing in 'the record to show that the

VOL i—35