ALBERT VS. SAVINGS BANK OF BALTIMORE. 419

Samuel Jones did not stop payment until September, 1846,
or petition for the benefit of the insolvent laws until January,
1847; and it may very well be said, if the officers of the bank
and the city had been put on their guard in due season, they
might have secured themselves from loss, if, under the circum-
stances of the case, they would have been liable.

This was not done, and it was not until after the failure of
Jones that this bill was filed, which, for the first time, brought
to the knowledge of the defendants the facts upon which relief.
against them is asked.

I do not think that the entry upon the books of the corpora-
tion, that this stock stood in the names of Samuel Jones and
Andrew D. Jones, trustees, was standing by itself, sufficient to
put the city upon the inquiry, and to make it responsible upon
the ground of negligence; and I am not prepared to say that
the fact that another received the dividends upon the order of
the trustees, would have that effect. But, be that as it may,
there has, I think, been negligence, if not acquiescence, on the
part of the cestui quo trusts quite equal to that imputed to the
city, and, therefore, I do not think they are entitled to relief.

The bill will be dismissed as against the city and Gushing,
and as against the bank there will be a decree for the surplus
now held by it.

[This decree was appealed from, but no decision has yet
been had upon the appeal.]