89 referred to provides in part that" before opening any branch office the approval, in writing, of the Superintendent of Banks shall be first obtained, and no discounts shall be made except such as have been previously authorized by the board of directors." Penalty for violation of the act is $1,000 for every violation.

The Bank of Jamaica (Long Island) has branches at Elmhurst, College Point, and Richmond Hill. The Brooklyn Bank has made arrangements for an office, but has not yet opened. The Corn Exchange Bank has twelve branches within the corporate limits of Greater New York. The Colonial Bank of New York has five branches. Far Rockaway Beach Bank has a branch at Rockaway Beach. The Hamiltotn Bank, The Mechanics' Bank, the Mechanics and Traders' Bank, The Twelfth Ward Bank, The Twenty-third Ward Bank, The Union Bank, and the Coney Island and Bath Beach Bank have each a branch in Greater New York; and the New York Produce Exchange Bank has four branches.

North Carolina.-There is no general law authorizing the establishment of branch banks. Most of the banks operate under special charters granted by the Legislature, and in some instances the charters granted contain authority for the opera

tion of branches.

North Dakota.- Branches or agencies not provided for by law.

Ohio. Branches are not authorized by law.

Oregon. There are no banking laws on the Oregon statute books; and there are, consequently, no parent or branch banks as recognized by the State in operation. The State issues no charters to banks nor has it on its statute books any laws pertaining to the operation of banks.

Pennsylvania.- Branches or agencies of banks are not authorized by the laws of this State. One savings institution, in conformity with an amendment of its charter, obtained from the Legislature an amendment having the approval of the Court of Common Pleas of the county in which the institution is located, and is endeavoring to establish a branch, but the question is now pending before the State Attorney-General.

Rhode Island.- The General Laws, chap. 171, § 11, pro

hibit the establishment of branches except by authority of the

General Assembly.

South Carolina.- The Code of 1892 of the Banking Laws of State contains no authority for the establishment and operation of branches by State banking institutions.

South Dakota.- Branches or agencies not provided for by law.

Tennessee. Under the law, branches of all corporations are permissible, the only requirement being that the charter be registered in the register's office of the county where the branches are located. The law governing branches is the same as for the parent bank, and the branches are operated in all respects as the parent banks. No information submitted as to the banks operating branches.

Utah.- Laws of the State do not authorize corporate banks to conduct branches or agencies in the State. One private bank (name not given) has a branch.

Vermont. Branches or agencies are not authorized by the banking laws, nor by the charter of any bank.

Virginia.― Branches permissible, but none in operation. West Virginia.- Each bank must be operated under special charter in an independent way. State banks may hold stock in other banking corporations.

Wisconsin. Incorporated banks of Wisconsin cannot, under the law, operaté branches, except possibly in the large cities where the branches are located within the same municipality as the parent bank. The certificate of incorporation of a State bank must specify the particular city or town where the business of the bank is to be carried on. Branches: The Second Ward Savings Bank of Milwaukee operates two branches; the German-American Bank of Milwaukee also operates a branch.

Wyoming.

The laws do not contemplate the establishment

of branches or agencies.

Where the statute of a State prohibits a banking corporation the privilege of establishing branches, an agency cannot be created. But where the statute is silent upon the question, and the charter permits the establishment of branches, any number of branches may be established by the parent bank,

and they may conduct business as agencies of the parent bank. But if the charter fails to provide for branches, the parent bank cannot establish branches. But where the statute of a State authorizes corporations which are formed under the general laws of a State the privilege of establishing agencies or branches in the State, a banking corporation organized and incorporated under such a general law may establish branches.

A corporation has only such powers as are granted to it by law, and it cannot establish branches in the State where this power or privilege is prohibited.

It is held in the case of People v. Oakland County Bank, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 282, "where by its charter a bank is located in one county, and it establishes an agency in another county where it receives deposits and buys and sells exchange, it thereeby violates its charter."

The court further says, in determining this case: "The last, and most important question, remains to be considered; and that is, whether the establishment of an agency in the city of Detroit was a violation of the charter of the defendants? By the act of the incorporation the stockholders were authorized to locate the bank in the county of Oakland. It follows, therefore, that if the corporation has undertaken to exercise any of its franchise without that county, it has usurped an authority in violation of law, and must suffer the penalty which that law inflicts. The case admits that the bank redeemed its bills, kept deposits, and as incident to such redemption, bought and sold exchange at the agency. Did these acts, or either of them separately considered, violate the law which gave a legal existence to the defendant? To determine this question, it is only necessary to define what business this bank was authorized by the law of its creation to do and perform. Such an examination will lead to the conclusion that it is a bank not simply of discount, but also of deposit. It is quite manifest that the defendants could not establish in this city an office of discount. If so, may it not equally be intended that they cannot establish an office of deposit? To my mind, the conclusion is irresistible. It requires no profound knowledge of the mysteries of banking to know that the amount of discounts, in institutions which profess to be guided by safe rules, is regulated chiefly by two censiderations: First, the amount of actual capital paid in,

and secondly, the amount of deposits. If banks did not discount upon the strength of their deposits, their profits would be greatly diminished; and the discounts predicated upon such deposits, in a well-regulated bank, having its regular customers, are always deemed an entirely safe operation. But it is unnecessary to push our inquiries any further upon this point, as we are all clearly of opinion that, in this respect, there was the assumption of an authority not warranted by law."

The subject is further discussed in the case of The Southwestern National Bank v. The Commonwealth, and it is there held that depositing money with another bank, for the redemption of notes, is not the establishing of an agency.

Therefore, where branches are authorized by law they are subject only to such powers and authority, as may be granted to them by the mother bank. They cannot exercise original authority which is not delegated to them. And the mother bank has authority to collect and enforce the payment of any and all debts due the branch bank.a

Where branch banks are authorized to be established in the State, it is not necessary to incorporate them. The mother bank can establish the branch, using the name obtained by the mother bank from the State. But in doing so the branch bank must be designated by all of its signs as such, so the general public may have the full knowledge that they are dealing with the agency.

§ 31. Proof of corporate existence.

When the corporate existence of a bank comes directly in question, which may arise when the State brings suit through its Attorney-General, in the name of the People of the State, to forfeit its Charter, proof of performance of every act required, whether by general law or special charter, must be made.

In collateral proceedings, being those where the corporate existence is denied or affirmed, in a suit between the bank and any party other than the State, the rule is held to be different. The fact is proved by putting in evidence the certificate of

7a Smith v. Lawson, 18 W. Va. 212; Bank of Augusta r. Earl, 13 Peters, 519.

incorporation. The corporate minutes proving an organization and use of the corporate name of the bank in business.8

9

The corporate existence of a plaintiff in ejectment may be established by evidence that it was a corporation de facto. One who has dealt with a corporation as such is estopped to deny its existence by demurrer. 10

The de facto incorporation can be shown by oral evidence, that is, the carrying on of a general banking business, as a bank under a certain name.11

The fact of incorporation is proved by putting in evidence the certificate of incorporation. The corporate minutes proving an organization and use of the corporate name of the bank in business, etc. 12

The fact that the certificate of incorporation of a national bank is signed by a deputy comptroller, a deputy appointed by the Comptroller of the United States, cannot be raised as an objection to its introduction in evidence; nor, that at the date of such certificate he was not clothed with authority to execute the power.13

Where the laws of a State require a foreign corporation to file within a certain number of days after commencing business within the State, a copy of their articles of incorporation with the Secretary of State: Held, that individuals who hold themselves out as a corporation, by complying with the requirements of such a law, will not be permitted to deny their corporate existence when sued by persons who have acted in good faith upon said representations.

The Comptroller's certificate, together with proof that the bank has been acting as a bank for a long time, is sufficient

& Casey, Receiver, v. Galli, 94 U. S. 673; Albert v. State, 65 Ind. 413; Nicollet Nat. Bank r. City Bank, 38 Minn. 85; Bullard v. Bank, 18 Wall. 589; Tapley v. Martin, 116 Mass. 275; Yakima Nat. Bank v. Knipe, 6 Wash. 348; Aspinwall v. Butler, 133 U. S. 595; Bank of Manchester v. Allen, 11 Vt. 302; Williams v. Union Bank, 21 Tenn. 339; McCormick v. Market Nat. Bank, 165 U. S. 538; Fresno Canal & Irri. Co. v. Warner, 72 Cal. 379; McCallion v. Hibernia Sav. Loan

Soc., 70 Cal. 163; McVicer v. Cone (Or), 28, p. 76.

9 Oakland Gas Light Co. v. Dameron, 37 Cal. 663.

10 Bank of Shasta v. Boyd, 99 Cal. 604; Cowell v. Springs Co., 100 U. S. 61; Close v. Glenwood Cem., 107 U. S. 466.

11 Yakima Nat. Bank v. Knipe, 6 Wash. 348.

12 United States Bank v. Stearns, 15 Wend. 314.

13 Keyser v. Hitz, 133 U. S. 138; Aspinwall v. Butler, 133 U. S. 595.