INDEX. 579

NOTICE OF TRUSTS— Continued.

3. In such case, if the trustees themselves should offer to transfer, under
circumstances calculated to excite suspicion that they were about to
abuse their trust, the bank would be bound to institute the necessary
inquiry, and if it omitted to do so, and loss resulted, the loss would be
thrown upon it. 16.

3. Where a party transfers stock as "executor," the bank must know that
there is a will, of which, in Maryland, it is bound to take notice.
But where the entry upon the books of a corporation only showed that
the stock stood in the name of certain persons, as trustees, without
showing who were the certuis qw trusts, or what the nature of the trust
was, it was HELD—That this entry, standing by itself, was not suf-
ficient to put the corporation upon the inquiry, and to make it respon-
sible on the ground of negligence. Ib.

See PURCHASERS, 3.
NOTICE OF A WILL.

See LIABILITY OF CORPORATIONS ON TRANSFERS OF THEIR STOCK, 4.

OBJECTIONS TO SALES.

See SALES or TRUSTEES, 13.
OBLIGOR AND OBLIGEE.

See ASSIGNMENT, 2.

CONTRIBUTION AMONG JOINT OBLIGORS.
OWNERS OF VESSELS, THEIR LIABILITY FOR SUPPLIES.

1. The owner is liable for the necessary supplies for the vessel furnished
by order of the master, and if he seeks to escape such liability, he
must show, by satisfactory proof, that the credit was given to others.
Mott vs. Steam Packet Co., 542.

2. If the owner can make out, by evidence, that the credit was given to
the master atone for such supplies, if it appears that there was a spe-
cial promise taken from him and relied upon, the owner will not be
liable. 16.
PAROL AGREEMENT RESPECTING LANDS.

iSee PART PERFORMANCE, 9, 10.

PAROL EVIDENCE TO CONTRADICT A RECEIPT IN A DEED.
It is the undisputed law of this state that a receipt in a deed acknow-
ledging the payment of the consideration money, is only prima jhde.
proof, and may be contradicted or explained by parol evidence. Elys-
ville Manufactwrmg Co. vs. Ofeisfco Co., 392. ''
PAROL PROOF.

See EVIDENCE, 11 to 13.

HCSBAND AND WIFE, 2.

PARTIES TO SUITS.

8<e PRACTICE M CHANCERY, 20, 25.
PARTITION.

1. An objection to a return made upon a commission to make partition,
that the commissioners did not distribute the estate by lot, but at their
own discretion assigned their several shares to the parties interested,
cannot be sustained either by the practice of the court, the act of as-
sembly, or the rule of the English Court of Chancery in similar cases
Cecil vs. Darsey, 223.