ALBERT VS. SAVINGS BANK OF BALTIMORE. 413

other way. To doubt the power of the party in whose name
the stock stands, when there is nothing to show that he holds
it in a fiduciary character, would seem to be impossible: and,
therefore, when questions have arisen as to the legal authority
of the trustee to sell and transfer, it must be understood as ap-
plying to cases in which the fiduciary character appears, but
there is nothing to indicate the nature of the trust or the bene-
ficiaries. It is supposed to be very clear, that no relief can be
had against the Savings Bank of Baltimore, except with regard
to the surplus in their hands, unless the fact that Samuel Jones
was a director of the institution at the time of the loan to him,
renders them liable.

The second proviso to the second section of the act of 1818,
ch. 93, (the charter,) declares among other things, the corpora-
tion shall not be authorized to loan any part of the funds de-
posited to any director of said corporation.

The loan in this case was to the firm of Talbot Jones & Co.,
of which, as it appears by the evidence, Samuel Jones, the di-
rector, was the only member; and it is insisted that, as the
charter prohibits loans to directors, the contract was void, and
the bank acquired and could exert no title to the stock pledged
as security for the repayment of the money loaned.

If the contract of loan between the bank and Jones were now
open and unexecuted, and an attempt were made to enforce its
performance, it appears to me the case of The Pennsylvania, &c.
Steam Navigation Co. vs. Dandridge, 8 G. & J., 284, would
be conclusive upon the question. The doctrines announced by
the court at pages 318, 319 and 320, render it too clear for
controversy, that even the corporation itself, may avail itself of
the want of authority to make the contract sought to be enforc-
ed against it, though it has received and enjoyed the consider-
ation upon which it was made.

If, then, a suit had been brought by the bank against Jones,
or by Jones against the bank, upon this contract, it would, in
my judgment, have beear competent to either of the defendant
wider such circumstances, to deny the validity of the contract,
as-forbidden by the charter.
35