Indeed, the trial court specifically found that no single individual employed by the defendant, had actual knowledge that Moyer was misapplying the funds of the estate. In Titcomb v. Richter, 89 Conn. 226, 93 A. 526 (1915), this court considered a claim by a trust beneficiary against stockbrokers for an accounting of trust funds improperly depleted by the fiduciary, Morris. The plaintiff had entrusted funds to Morris for investment, which Morris deposited in an account with the defendants in the name "Charles E. Morris, Trustee."

A fortiori, would this be the case where the agent paid the bank by check on the deposit. 7 C.J. pp. 658, 659; Pomeroy's Eq. Jur. § 1048; Thomson v. Clydesdale Bank [1893] A.C. (House of Lords) 282; In re Goll (D.C.) 8 F.2d 101; Arnold v. San Ramon Valley Bank, 184 Cal. 632, 194 P. 1012, 13 A.L.R. 320, and note; Cable v. Iowa State Sav. Bank, 197 Iowa 393, 194 N.W. 957, 197 N.W. 434, 31 A.L.R. 748, and note; Kimmel v. Bean, 68 Kan. 598, 75 P. 1118, 64 L.R.A. 785, 104 Am. St. Rep. 415; Titcomb v. Richter, 89 Conn. 226, 93 A. 526; Smith v. Des Moines Nat. Bank, 107 Iowa 620, 78 N.W. 238; Burnham v. Holt, 14 N.H. 367; Stephens v. Board, 79 N.Y. 183, 35 Am. Rep. 511; Hatch v. Bank, 147 N.Y. 184, 41 N.E. 403; Meyers v. N.Y. Bank, 36 App. Div. 482, 55 N.Y.S. 504. See, also, Holly v. Missionary Society, 180 U.S. 284, 21 S. Ct. 395, 45 L. Ed. 531. It has been suggested that the cases of Bank of Metropolis v. New England Bank, supra, and Wilson v. Smith, supra, have been overruled by the later cases of Central National Bank v. Insurance Co., 104 U.S. 54, 26 L. Ed. 693; Union Stockyards Bank v. Gillespie, 137 U.S. 411, 11 S. Ct. 118, 34 L. Ed. 724; United States v. Butterworth-Judson Corp., 267 U.S. 387, 45 S. Ct. 338, 69 L. Ed. 672; but a careful reading of these cases shows that each of them was decided on the ground of actual knowledge by the bank of the character of the deposit or knowledge of facts sufficient to put it on inquiry as to such character.

On the eve of the second trial, the plaintiff amended his complaint to claim permanent and total deafness on the left side as a result of the defendant's negligence. The defendant did not join issue on this allegation, and, since he did not deny it, it is to be taken as admitted. Greenthal v. Lincoln, Seyms Co., 67 Conn. 372, 377, 35 A. 266; Titcomb v. Richter, 89 Conn. 226, 229, 93 A. 526; H. Williamson, Ltd. v. Perry, 111 Conn. 317, 324, 150 A. 17. It is unnecessary to discuss the other claims of error.

Seeley v. Cornell, 74 F.2d 353, 356 (certiorari denied sub nomine Cornell v. Seeley, 295 U.S. 742). Lomita Land Water Co. v. Robinson, 154 Cal. 36, 45-46. Titcomb v. Richter, 89 Conn. 226, 229. Mechem on Agency (2d ed.) § 2137. Am. Law Inst. Restatement: Agency, § 312. Such liability could be for the retained proceeds of bonds which had been the subject of the relation between the bank and Mrs. Welch and Miss Lennon.

No such pleading appears in the record before us and the trial court, therefore, was entitled to assume the truth of the allegations of the petition in entering the order of support against the defendant. American Masons' Supply Co. v. F. W. Brown Co., 174 Conn. 219, 228, 384 A.2d 378 (1978); Titcomb v. Richter, 89 Conn. 226, 229, 93 A. 526 (1915). We would be more concerned with the impact of our decision upon the constitutional rights of the defendant, which the irregularities in the procedure employed here have precluded us from considering, if the trial court did not have continuing jurisdiction in this kind of proceeding to modify or set aside at any time a support order which has been entered.