410 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

bank knew, or had reason to suspect, that the said stock was
affected by a trust of any description whatsoever.

In truth, the counsel for the complainants was not understood
to ask for a decree against the bank upon the ground of either
actual or constructive notice of the trust; the right to relief, as
against it, being claimed upon other grounds.

Assuming that the trustees had the power to sell and trans-
fer this stock, it would seem to be unquestionable that the bank,
regarded as a bona fide purchaser, and without notice, will be
protected. The opinion of the Circuit Court of the United
States for the Maryland District, in the case of /".omry vs. The
Commercial and Farmers Bank of Baltimore, and others, de-
livered by the Chief Justice, in July, 1848, is very clear and
full upon this point; and the same principle was conceded in
the case of Wayman and Stockett vs. The Westminster Bank, et.
al., 5 Gill, 336.

The mischiefs which would be consequent upon a different
doctrine, in disturbing the usages of trade and business, and
in deprec.iating the value of property of this description, are
stated forcibly by the Chief Justice in the case referred to, and
are distinctly presented by the court in the case of Davis vs.
The Bank of England, 9 Eng. Corn. Law Reps. 444. In the
latter case, though the property in the stock did not pass, the
transfer having been made by a forged power of attorney, yet
it was decided that a bona fide purchaser from the party who
committed the fraud was entitled to recover from the bank the
dividend which fell due upon the stock, which consisted of
consolidated annuities, made payable at the Bank of England.
The Judge said in that case—"If this be not the law, who will
purchase stock, or who can be certain that the stock which he
holds belongs to him ?" That "this facility of transfer is one
of the advantages belonging to this species of property, and
this advantage would be entirely destroyed if a purchaser should
be required to look for the regularity of the transfer to all the
various persons through whom such stock had passed."

The case of Wayman and Stockett vs. The Westminster Bank,
et al., may, perhaps, be understood as going beyond the case