and 1879, owing to a feeling of insecurity on the part of depositors towards savings banks, it was' customary for the banks to raise money by assignment of their securities or otherwise to meet demands. It is shown that Kimball purchased mortgages from other savings banks in Massachusetts. The fact, therefore, that the Reading Savings Bank wanted to dispose of some securities to raise money was not exceptional in it;s character. There was nothing in it, unusual, or calculateli t6 excitesnrprise or to put a person upon his guard. Nor, upon the evidence, was there anything unusual, or calculated to arouse the suspicion ora person of Kimball's banking experience, in permitting the treasurer of a savings ,bank to assign securities. A strong fact going to ,prove ,Kimhall'sgoQd faith is that he paidfull face value,including interest, for these mortgages. There is no evidence to show.·that Kimball had any ,suchrelll.tions with SidneyP. Pratt, the son of the treasurer, and engaged him in defrauding the bank, as go to prove any lmowledge on his part of anything irregular. I have carefully examined the transactions with which the son was conne.cted, and which it is claimed are calculated to throw suspicion, at least, upon Kimball, and, in my opinion, the facts do not warrant any 'such infllrence. I have no reason to doubt Kimball's statement that he never saw Sidney P. Pratt but dnce to recognize him, and never had any conversation with him. The plaintiffs' charge of naud or notice is not sustained by proof. . , Another ground relied upon in this ease is that the certificate received by Kimball was not a copy of the record of the bank with its fraudulent interpolation,b'ut was a forgery of sU'ch record. The 'copy received by Kimball has the word "assign" placed before" diScharge," while the fraudulent record places it after. The copy Kimball produces is the same as the copy found in .Thompson's diary, (see Holden v. Phelps, 141 Mass. E. Rep. 815,) which was made by Thompson at least several months' before' tlie first .purchase by Kimball..., It also' appears that· the bo<ily of Kimball's copy is probably not in the handwriting of N.P. Pratt, but of his son, Sidney. As to the signature of thiscertifi.. cate, another 80n of Pratt testifies' that he does not think his father wrote it; and Solon Bancroft, one of the receivers of ther hank!, testines that he is flimiIiarwith Pratt's writing, and that he is'quite conndelit it was not . \ written by him. ,By this means the plaintiffs undertake to establish that Kimball's certificate was, not sent to hini br N; p;. Pratt, the treasurer and' secretary, but that it came from Thompson, and was a forgery. Kimball swears that ,he asked Prattif he had authority to assign mortgages; that he smd he had, and would furnish a copy of the voiet'and that, imme,diiately after, he sent him the certificate, which he produces, by mail'. This evidence stands uncontradicted. I think the defendant has fairly .miLdeotlt that the certificate, which is, in substance, a copy of the record .althe bank,'was received by Kimball from N. P. Pratt, secretary and treasurer, in the course bf negotiating the sale ofthefirst mortgages purchased, and it follows that,whether forged or net, it binds the bank as against an innocent party acting in good faith and without notice.
The by the plaintiffs that .the receipt given by Kimball or the Appleton Bank shows, as to the secureties it CQverEl, that the transaction was a pledge, and not a sale. This question has already been carefully 90nsidered in Whiting v. Wellington and Com. v. Reading Sav. Bank. In the conclusion there reached, which is adverse to the plaintiffs' contention, I concur. There is no force in the objection that these purch&ses were Ot;l account of the Appleton National ,Bank, and that, therefore, no' title passel! ,because national banks are prohibited from The evidence is far from supporting the proposition that purchases were made on account of the "Appleton Bank; but, even if they were, it could D,otavail these plaintiffs. National Bank v. Matihew8,98 U. S. 621; National Bank v. Whitney, 103 U. S. 99; Fortier v. N,atiunal.pank, 112 U. S. 439, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 234; ReynoldJJ v,. ,NationalBanlc, 112 U. S. 405.5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 213. I find,nothing to take ,this case out from the decisions in, Whiting ,v. WeUin¢.oo,Cotn. v. Reading Sav. Bank, and Holden v. I'help8,and therefore the bill should be dismissed, with costs.
Tucx, V. OLDS and otherS.,
D. Michigan, 8. D. October Term, 1886.)
OoSTS-W;r.TNE,SS :M:AXINGEXAMINATION OF DocK.
theilollU.! in quo, a certain dock, the exact location of which was in question,
A fee to witness for his services in making a preliminary examInation of
cannotb,e allowed to be, taxed as costs. costs being the creature of statute, and the statute not authorizing such an allowance; and it is immaterial that the survey was made in order that intelligent testimony might be given upon the questJ,on of location. ' Rev. St., U. S.§ 824, allowing an attorney's or solicitor's fee of $2.50 for each'deposition taken and admitted in evidence in a cause, does not apply to depositions taken before any of the regular exatnining officers of the court, in the ordinary way of taking depositions, or before some person agreed on by the parties to act as examiner, but applies only to depositions taken de bene uBe,and in 'Iluch other cases, not .within the scope of the ordinary method of taking testimony in causes pendingin the federal courts, as may arise. A fee to a party to the actiqn is taxable in the federal court as costs, provided the party causes it to appear by his atlldavit, annexed to his bill of costs, that his attendance was solely for the purpose of giving his evidence in the action, an4 not to assist in its. management. these facts do appear the affidavit in co.use.. yet, where the orq.ission J;lqt excepted to, th.e fee WIll be alloW.ed as already taxed, upon the partyfllIDg al1 affidavit statiills.:,the facts. No allowance of traveling fells can be made; Where the PlUty;does not appeal: from thereof by t}l8 clerlt.
FOR TAJl;ING DEPOSITIONS.
B.um-Wrn'iEBS FEE TQ PAliTY, TO ACTION.
On motion for. of costs. G.amon, fOJ:complainant. and A., Wolf, f0l'defendants.