The natural presumption is that money deposited to the credit of a depositor by himself belongs to that depositor, and in reason the bank need only look to the apparent owner of the fund. If it pays that apparent owner of the deposit or one designated by him, the bank is fully protected.1 But sometimes it will happen that money deposited to the credit of one man really belongs to another.2 In such case, after notice as to who is the true owner of the fund, the bank cannot pay the apparent owner.3 If the bank pays the true owner of the fund it is always protected.4 The rule is believed to be settled that a bank cannot dispute the title of the depositor, except when the credit is claimed by the true owner, or when the same has been attached or garnished.8 When the form of the deposit is such that it is notice of the true ownership of the fund, the bank is compelled to act upon such notice.6 But the mere fact that the word "assignee" is appended to the depositor's name in the deposit is not notice to the bank that the credit belongs to any particular fund;7 nor is a deposit in the name of the county treasurer by itself notice that the fund belongs to the county.8 The whole test is whether under the circumstances the bank had reason to believe or ought to have known that some one else than the depositor owned the fund.9 If a mistake is made in the name in which money is deposited in the bank, the bank is bound to rectify the mistake, unless it has changed its position to its detriment by reason of the fact of deposit.10 But whenever there is a dispute as to the ownership, the bank acts at its peril in attempting to settle the matter for itself.11 Payment into court under a bill of interpleader should generally be resorted to. It often happens that one man will make a deposit in another man's name. But that single fact does not operate as a transfer to the one in whose name the deposit is made.12 Yet, of course, if it is an actual transaction between the two persons, or if it be a case of gift or declaration of trust, the title is complete in the third party or trustee.13 But the one who made the deposit, upon tender of the pass-book and proof of no transfer or gift, is entitled to recover the deposit against the bank.14 But no careful banker would be justified in acting unless the third party waives his claim, or unless there is no controversy. Assign-ments may be made of deposits in a bank. An oral assignment or declaration of trust of a deposit is good,15 but the

24 See Sec. Sec. 188-190,343 and 344, post.

1 Daly v. New York Chem. Co., 2 Hall, 550; Fulton Bank v. New York Canal Co., 4 Paige, 127; McEwen v. Davis, 39 Ind. 109; Davis v. Panhandle Nat. Bank, 29 S. W. R. 926. As to presumption see Egbert v. Payne, 99 Pa. 239; Lockhaven Nat. Bank v. Mason, 95 Pa. 113.

2 See cases following.

3Providence Ass'n v. Citizens' Sav. Bank, 19 R. I. 142; Anderson v. Market Nat. Bank, 1 N. Y. Supp. 136; Frazier v. Erie Bank, 8 Watts & S. 18; Union Bank v. Johnson, 9 Gill & J. 297. As to fact of notice see Isom v. First Nat. Bank, 52 Miss. 102; Gibson v. Nat. Park Bank, 98 N. Y. 87; Eagle Mfg. Co. v. Belcher, 89 Ga. 218.

4 Lockhaven Bank v. Mason, 95 Pa. 113; Brown v. Kinsley Ex. Bank, 51 Kan. 359. True owner may recover against the bank. Starr v. York Nat. Bank, 55 Pa. 364; Smith v. Phila. Nat. Bank, 1 Walk. (Pa.) 318. It is said that the bank can pay the true owner only when he has enforced his claim by legal process. Lund v. Seamen's Bank, 37 Barb. 129. But this is not true. See Farmers' Bank v. King, 57 Pa. 202; First Nat. Bank v. Bache, 71 Pa. 213; Viets v. Union Nat. Bank, 101 N. Y. 563; Bank v. Waddel, 100 N. C. 338.

5 Citizens' Bank v. Alexander, 120 Pa. 476; Martin v. State Bank, 7 S. D. 263

6 See the next section.

7Laubach v. Leibert, 87 Pa. 55. See next section.

8 Eyerman v. Second Nat. Bank, 84 Mo. 408. See next section.

9 California Bank v. Western Union TeL Co., 52 CaL 280; White v. Springfield Inst, 134 Mass. 232; Mfg. Nat. Bank v. Barnes, 65 111. 69.

10First Nat Bank v. Belt, 29 111. A pp. 194

11 Parker v. Hartley, 91 Pa. 465. It has no right to change a deposit Winter v. Bank of New York, 2

Caines. 337; Jameson v. Collins, 11 Phila. 258.

12 Branch v. Dawson, 36 Minn. 19a See Douglas v. First Nat Bank, 17 Minn. 35; Armstrong v. National Bank, 53 Iowa, 752.

13 See case following and Minor v. Rogers, 40 Conn. 512; Martin v. Funk, 75 N. Y. 134.

14Brodeneck v. Waltham Sav. Inst, 109 Mass. 149.

15McEwen v. Davis, 39 Ind. 109. Accompanied with change of debank may require a written transfer.16 But a promise to transfer is not such an assignment as a bank may act upon.17 A written assignment of a deposit, accompanied by a delivery of the pass-book, is evidence of a complete assignment,18 although the deposit is made payable after the depositor's decease.19 But a mere delivery of the deposit slip is not an assignment even as to one who discounted a check upon the fact.20 Notice of the assignment to the bank is necessary to protect the assignee,21 for a payment without notice is protected.22 After a bank has certified a check, so much of the deposit belongs to the bank. Such funds are therefore not attachable as the depositor's credit or debt from the bank, yet this self-evident proposition is disputed.23 There may be liens upon the deposit, and the bank, if it have notice thereof, must protect the lien, otherwise not.24