We think the learned auditor in the court below has correctly pointed out the distinctions between the cases in which corporate liability is held, and those in which it is denied, in this class of causes. He held that where the corporation received the *171benefits of the unauthorized action of its officers it was bound. Also that where a previous course of dealing of the same irregular character had been carried on, a liability arose notwithstanding the unlawful character of the paper, but that where there was no such previous course of dealing no liability arose as to the particular paper in question. And he held that in the case of the Spring Garden National Bank the fraud of its president, in contriving and negotiating the fraudulent paper for his own personal use, was with knowledge of the bank, imputed it is true, but correctly imputed, to his bank, and the paper thus held created no liability on the part of the Cracker Company. In these several findings we concur. None of the authorities cited for the- appellant conflict with these findings where the facts were similar. Without engaging in a protracted discussion, which we think unnecessary, we affirm the decree of the court below substantially for the reasons stated in the report of the auditor.
Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed at the cost of the appellant.