Where trust funds are so deposited that the bank is not chargeable with notice that they are trust funds, it is able to give credit upon them to the depositor, and is not liable for paying them out, as if they belonged to the depositor.1 Yet as soon as the bank posit (Hillman v. McWilliams, 70 Cal. 449), or without such change (Risley v. Phoenix Bank, 83 N. Y. 318). See cases in notes 17, 18, 19 and 20 to this section.

16 McEwen v. Davis, 39 Ind. 109; Risley v. Phoenix Bank, 83 N. Y. 318; First Nat. Bank v. Clark, 134 N. Y. 368. Bank cannot pay depositor after notice of assignment. Griffin v. Rice, 1 Hilt. 184; Beck-with v. Union Bank, 9 N. Y. 211.

17 Coffin v. Henshaw, 10 Ind. 277.

18Foss v. Lowell Sav. Ass'n, 111 Mass. 285.

19 Schollmeier v. Schoendelen, 78 Iowa, 426.

20 First Nat Bank v. Clark, 134 N. Y. 368.

21 Beckwith v. Union Bank, 9 N. Y. 211.

22 Griffin v. Rice, 1 Hilt. 184; Nightingale v. Chaffee, 11 R, L 609.

23 See Sec. 150, post; but see Bills v. Park Bank, 89 N. Y. 343. The court mistook completely the nature of the transaction of certifying. The decision may be justified upon the ground that the certifying was a mere fraudulent device.

24 But where an attachment reaches legal interests no lien is created by a garnishment of a deposit, where the levy is upon the interest of the true owner, but the deposit stands in another's name. Greenleaf v. Mumford, 50 Barb. 543. Yet this decision appears to be wrong on the New York statuta See Gibson v. Nat. Park Bank, 98 N. Y. 87, and note 2 to Sec. 137, post

1 School Disk v. First Nat Bank, has notice of the trust character of the deposit it must act accordingly.2 The bank will be held to have had notice from the words attached to the name of the depositor in the account indicating a trust relation, such as the word trustee3 or general agent.4 So, where a public officer deposits public moneys in his official name, the credit passes to the successor to that officer.5 But where moneys are deposited by a public officer in his individual name, the bank may treat the funds as those of the individual so long as it has no notice of its trust character.6 If the fund is deposited by an agent, which fact is known to the bank, the bank has notice that the fund, belongs to some one else than the depositor.7 "Where the fact of agency is disclosed, the bank has no right to assume that the agent has power to do anything more than deposit the money.8 It would be unsafe to rely upon the agent's statements as to who has authority to draw out the funds.9 But this proposition is disputed.10 The law ought to be that whoever deposits money has the right to draw it out, where words which merely describe his capacity are appended to the deposit. Thus, where A. deposits money to the credit of A., "agent," A.'s check as agent ought to be good authority to the bank to pay, unless the name of the principal is disclosed or ascertained in some way. If the name of the principal be disclosed, then only that principal ought to have authority to authorize a payment to be made by the bank.11 But where the deposit is to the credit of A., "trustee," the check of A. as trustee ought to be sufficient.12 The difference between the agent and trustee is that one holds the legal title and the other does not; one has full power to deal with the property, the other has only a limited power, depending upon the terms of the agency. But where the question is between the bank and the agent, there is no question that the bank has no right to appropriate the deposit which it knows is made by him as agent to the bank's claim against the agent.13 The same is true as to trustees.14 So, in case of partnership deposits, the bank cannot pay out the money upon a private check of one of the partners15 unless there is such a custom of dealing.16

102 Mass. 174 See also Ensman v. Delaware Co. Bank, 37 Wkly. Notes Cas. 578; In re Plankinton Bank, 87 Wis. 378; Wood v. Boylston Bank, 129 Mass. 358. But the bank cannot apply the deposit to its own previously existing claim so as to cut off the true owner unless it in some way has a lien upon the deposit. Burtnett v. First Nat. Bank, 38 Mich. 630; National Bank v. Insurance Co., 104 U. S. 54. And see note 3 to Sec. 140, post.

2 Bundy v. Monticello, 84 Ind. 119; Ihl v. St. Joseph Bank, 26 Mo. A pp. 129.

3 See cases cited in last note.

4 National Bank v. Insurance Co., 104 U. S. 54.

5 Meridian Nat. Bank v. Hauser, 145 Ind. 496; Carman v. Franklin Bank, 61 Md. 467. See also Smith v. Board, 48 N. J. Eq. 627. But Eyerman v. Bank, 84 Mo. 408, and

Swartwout v. Mechanics' Bank, 5 Denio, 555, are wrong.

6 Long v. Emsley, 57 Iowa, 11.

7 Union Stock Yards Bank v. Gillespie, 137 U. S. 411: National Bank v. Insurance Co., 104 U. S. 54.

8 Honig v. Pacific Bank, 73 Cal. 464. Compare Citizens' Bank v. Harrison, 127 Md. 128, and Sec. 143, post, note 12. See also Bristol Knife Co. v. Bank, 41 Conn. 421.

9 Honig v. Pacific Bank, 73 Cal. 464; Bates v. First Nat. Bank, 89 N. Y. 286: Kerr v. People's Bank, 158 Pa. 305.

10 See Randolph v. Allen, 73 Fed. R. 23,41 U. S. App. 117, semble. If the money actually belongs to the so-called agent the bank is protected. Kerr v. People's Bank, 158 Pa. 305. If principal authorizes or ratifies, the bank is protected. City Bank v. Kent, 57 Ga. 283.

11 Honig v. Pacific Bank, 73 Cal. 464. However the knowledge comes to the bank, either through the agent or the principal, is immaterial. Farmers' Bank v. King, 57 Pa. 202; Lindsey v. Lambert Ass'n, 4 Fed. R 48.

12 Munnerlyn v. Augusta Sav. Bank, 88 Ga. 333, says the private check of the individual is sufficient; but this case seems wrong. The reasoning is poor. The true rule is that a check by the trustee as trustee is good. Anderson v. Walker, 49 S. W. R. 937; Duckett v. Nat. Mechanics' Bank, 86 Md. 400. But anything else is a breach of trust.

13 Lawrence v. Bank of Republic, 35 N. Y. 320, as to an assignee; Union Stock Yards Bank v. Gillespie, 137 U. S. 411, as to an agent.

Compare Laubach v. Lubert, 87 Pa. 55; Clemmer v. Drovers' Nat. Bank, 157 111. 206.

14 Central Bank v. Life Ins. Co., 104 U. S. 54; United States v. National Bank, 73 Fed. R. 379; Clemmer v. Drovers' Nat. Bank, 157 111. 206; McDowell v. Bank of Wilmington, 2 Del. Ch. 1. But bank bound by agreement to so apply. Sayre v. Weil, 94 Ala. 466. See Hale v; Richards, 80 Iowa, 164. In both these cases the bank was held estopped as against the depositor from saying that an application of a trust deposit already made was wrongfully made.

15 Coote v. United States Bank, 3 Cranch, C. C. 50; Billings v. Meigs, 53 Barb. 272. But if the bank can show that the money actually went

16 Evans v. Evans, 82 Iowa, 492.

The statement of the partner as to his authority will not justify the bank in acting upon it.17 A deposit to the credit of a corporate officer as such belongs to the corporation.18