
    Witte against The Derby Fishing Company.
    Banks, and other corporations of a similar nature,author-ized by their act cf incorporation to contract in a particular mode, may, by a course of practice, render themselves liable on instruments• executed in a different mode.
    THIS was an. action against the defendants, as .drawers of a bill of exchange.
    The cause was tried at Mew~Haven, August term, 1817, before Edmond and Smith, Js.
    
      
      Hartford,
    
    November, 1817.
    On the trial, the plaintiff read in evidence, a bill of exchange, which was as fallows : “ Exchange for 4501. Sterling. Derby, Connecticut, 7th July, 1814. At sixty days sight of this first of exchange, (second and third of the same tenour and date not paid,) pay to the order of Messrs. Lawrence Sf Whitney, four hundred and fifty ponds, sterling, value received, which place to account of the Derby Fishing Company, with, or without, further advice.
    
      Canfield Gillet, President.”
    
      Samuel Williams, Esq.
    Merchant, London”
    
    This bill was indorsed by Lawrence 8f Whitney to the plaintiff; and was afterwards regularly presented, and protested. The plaintiff then offered to prove, that Gillet had, in many instances, draw n and accepted, for and in behalf of the company, and with their approbation, other bills of exchange, signed only by him as president. To the admission of this evidence the defendants objected; and before any decision thereon, it was agreed by the parties, that the cause should be continued, and the question of law submitted, in the meantime, to the nine Judges, for their advice.
    
      Daggett and Staples, for the plaintiff.
    JV*. Smith and Bristol, for the defendants.
    
      
      
         By the act of incorporation, it is provided, that * all notes and contracts, signed by the president, and countersigned by the secretary, shall be binding on said corporation, according to the terms and tenour thereof.” 1 Stat. Conn, tit. ?Q> c. 10, s. 8.
    
   Swift, Ch. J.

The question submitted to ns in this case, depends upon the same principle, as the preceding case of Bulkley and others against these defendants ; and I should advise, that the testimony offered, is admissible.

In this opinion, the other Judges severally concurred, except Baldwin, J. who gave no opinion, being a stockholder in the company. The Judges who dissented from the opinion of the majority in the last case, after that case was decided, considered this as governed by it.  