US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

When a bank refuse to do the particular thing requested with securities delivered to it for that purpose only, it is its duty to return the securities, and no general lien in its favor attaches to them.

The fact that a bank has in its possession securities which were sent to it for a particular purpose and which it is its duty to return to the sender does not justify it retaining them for any other purpose under a banker's agreement giving it a general lien on all securities deposited by the sender.

A banker's agreement giving a general lien on securities deposited by its correspondent will not be construed so as to give it a broad meaning beyond its evident scope and in conflict with the precept of duty, good faith, and confidence necessary for commercial transactions; nor will a printed form prepared by the banker be so extended by the construction of any ambiguous language.

In this case, it was held that the retention by a bank of securities for a purpose different from that for which they were sent by its correspondent could not be predicated on the consent of the latter, and that inaction of the correspondent could not be construed as consent.

149 F.1d 7 affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion. chanrobles.com-red

Page 215 U. S. 112