236 SECRETARIAL PRACTICE

Specially
prescribed
forms.

Summary.

ignorance of any defect in the instrument, it was held that
the professed attorney, i.e. the stockbroker, was liable to in-
demnify the bank [Oliver v. Bank of England (1902), 18 T.L.R.
341; Starkey v. Bank of England (1903), A.C. 114; Sheffield
Corporation v. Barclay (1905), A.C. 392, where Lord Davey
said: ‘I dissent from the proposition that a person who brings
a transfer to the registering authority and requests him to
register it makes no representation that it is a genuine docu-
ment ’].

The Forged Transfers Act 1891 provides that local authorities
and companies (including companies incorporated by statute
or by royal charter) may ‘impose such reasonable restrictions
on the transfer of their shares, stock, or securities, or with
respect to powers of attorney for the transfer thereof, as they
may consider requisite for guarding against losses by forgery,’
and may make compensation out of their funds for any loss
arising from a forged transfer or a transfer under a forged
power of attorney. In the case of any stock to which the
Colonial Stock Acts apply, the Government of the Colony
issuing the stock may apply the Act to the stock so issued.

Finally, it must be remembered that companies and
other bodies or authorities (e.g. the Bank of England and
the Pay Office) prescribe special forms for use in certain cases.
Their right to do so cannot be questioned where it is made
one of the terms on which the property to be dealt with is
created or retained under their control, whether by virtue
of a statute,! rules of the Supreme Court,? or articles of asso-
ciation; and as such forms are presumably prescribed as a
reasonable measure of protection against forgery, it is open
to doubt whether in any event the right to insist on their use
could successfully be challenged [see Prosser v. Bank of
England (1872), L.R. 13 Eq. 611].

The following, therefore, are some practical questions for
consideration when a company is asked to act upon a power
of attorney: —

(1) Is there any reason to doubt the genuineness of the
instrument?

(2) Was the grant of the power within the capacity of
the donor?

(3) Is there satisfactory evidence of the identity and
capacity of the donee?

1 E.g., s. 22 of the National Debt Act, 1870, and s. 17 of the Finance
Act, 1911.

2 E.g., Supreme Court Funds Rules. Rule 48.