ALBERT VS. SAVINGS BANK OF BALTIMORE. 417

In this case in the Circuit Court the stock stood in the name
of the deceased, Talbot Jones, and was transferred by Samuel
Jones as executor, from which the bank must have known that
there was a will; of which, as the Chief Justice says, in Ma-
ryland, the bank was bound to take notice. In this case, though
the stock may at one time have stood in the name of the de-
ceased, yet, from the year 1841, it had stood in the name of the
trustees, and as these trusts may be, and often are, created by
agreement, of which no record need be made, the same facility
of ascertaining the true ownership of the property did not exist,
as in the case decided in the Circuit Court, where the bank was
pointed to the will of the deceased, to be found upon the pub-
lic records of the state.

In the case now under consideration, the officers of the city
nf Baltimore saw by the books of the corporation that this
,stock had stood in the names of these parties as trustees, from
1841 to 1845; and although in 1841 it had been transferred
by themselves as executors to themselves as trustees, and
although the transfer made by them as executors in 1841, was
evidence that Talbot Jones left a will, yet as the stock continued
to stand in their names as trustees from that time down to 1845;

the officers of the city might well assume that the will of the
deceased had ceased to operate upon it.

There is another circumstance in this case, which, as it ap-
pears to me, draws a marked line of distinction between it and
the case decided by the Circuit Court.

The dividends upon this stock, from January, 1842, to Octo-
ber, 1845, inclusive, were paid to the husband of Mrs. Albert,
under aa authority to her, signed by the executors, and from
October, 1845, to January, 1847, during which period it stood
in the name of the Savings Bank, they were paid to its presi'
dent, Mr. Cashing, and there is no evidence whatever, that
during that time, or until the filing of this bill, in May, 1847,
any inquiry or complaint was made by the complainants to the
city, on account of this diversion of their accustomed receipts.

The bill alleges that in May, 1846, one of the complainants
informed Mr. Gushing that this stock was held by the trustees,