6 First Nat. Bank v. Bank of Monroe, 33 Fed. R. 408; Evansville Bank v. Germ. Am. Bank, 155 U. S. 556. It is held that an indorsement for collection and credit does not pass title to the bank, even though it be credited as cash. Armstrong v. National Bank, 90 Ky. 431. But every indorsement for credit to any bank, not the one on which the paper is drawn, shows that very same fact.

7 See Sec. 133, ante.

8 Hutchins v. Manhattan Co., 29 N. Y. Supp. 1103.

9 Cody v. City Nat Bank, 55 Mich. 379; McBride v. Farmers' Bank, 26 N. Y. 450; Dod v. Fourth Nat. Bank, 59 Barb. 265; Comm. Bank v. Marine Bank, 3 Keyes, 337. The case of Wyman v. Colo. Nat. Bank, 5 Colo. 30, wrongly held an overdraft already existing sufficient. Milliken v. Shapleigh, 36 Mo. 596, is to the contrary. Carrol v. Exc. Bank, 30 W. Va. 518, holds that general balances are sufficient, but Bank of Syracuse v. Wis. Ins. Co., 12 N. Y. Supp. 952, contradicts it The New York cases do not recognize an existing debt as sufficient

10 Greene v. Jackson Bank, 18 R. L 779; In re Armstrong, 41 Fed. R. 381.

11 See Sec. 140, ante.

12 The rule as to application applies only to general deposits.

13 The initial bank becomes responsible to the holder because it obtains the proceeds by a credit which if lawfully given is precisely the same as the receipt of so much actual money. See In re Madison Bank, 5 Biss. 515. But it should be remembered that if the deposit for collection was taken by a bank known to its officers to be insolvent, a fraud was committed upon the depositor, and a credit by one bank to another bank would not relieve it from its liability to the owner, unless it could claim to be a bona fide holder of the proceeds. See note 25, infra.

14 This principle is recognized in most of the cases. See Evansville Bank v. Germ. Am. Bank, 155 U. S. 556. But the crediting cannot be made before payment. Jones v. Kilbreth, 49 Ohio St. 401. One case holds that if no collection is made except by a credit allowed the debtor on an overdraft, the collection is not paid. Kinney v. Paine, 68 Miss. 258. This is a sound decision as applied to a credit allowed in an insolvent bank. Other cases hold that if a remittance is made by exchange, which is a bank check, the collection is complete as to the remitting bank. Aken v. Jones, 93 Tenn. 358; Sayles v. Cox, 95 Tenn. 579. But this is true only when the exchange is paid. As to the relation that results upon collection, compare Billingsley v. Pollock, 69 Miss. 659; Bowman v. First Nat. Bank, 9 Wash. 614, with Hunt v. Townsend, 26 S. W. R. 310.

15 As to assignees see Greene v. Jackson Bank, 18 R. I. 779.

16 Ordinarily garnishment is for the purpose of reaching those assets of the debtor which are not capable of manual delivery. Such would be a bailor's interest where the bailee was in possession and entitled to the possession. The bailor's interest is recognized as attachable in Warner v. Fourth Nat. Bank. 115 N. Y. 251, but if it be attachable, it could only be by process of garnishment under most systems. Where a chose in action is garnished the usual course is to garnish the debtor. Manual delivery of the document itself would not necessarily confer any lien against the debtor. This question must be settled by reference to special treatises upon the subject of attachment and garnishment. The leading authorities upon the question will be found in note 20, infra. But it is such a simple matter for the holder of the collection to avoid the effect of a garnishment, and it is so difficult for the creditor, unless he can obtain confidential information from the banks, that the whole inquiry can hardly be considered practical.

17 It is not subject to execution because not capable of being taken possession of as against the bailee in possession with a right to retain possession.

18 Fourth Nat Bank v. Meyer, 89 Ga.l0a spondent bank.19 But the general principle unquestionably is that uncollected paper is not subject to garnishment.20 When the collection comes into the hands of the primary bank it becomes subject either to garnishment, if a general deposit or if a special deposit, and in some cases might be reached by direct levy.21 But the creditor may proceed, if he is otherwise entitled, in equity, and by means of injunc-tional orders obtain what relief could be granted him in the particular case.22 "When the proceeds have been received by the primary bank they become a general deposit to the credit of the depositor,23 unless by special agreement or by a course of dealing they become a special deposit,24 or unless the collection was received by the primary bank under such circumstances that it became a constructive trustee for the depositor, as, for example, by receiving the deposit when it was known to its officers to be insolvent.25 In this latter voke the credit,38 or if the proceeds have passed back to holder it may recover from the holder.39 A depreciation in the medium of payment must fall on the bank which at the time holds the proceeds.40

19 Freeman v. Exchange Bank, 87 Ga. 45; Naser v. First Nat. Bank, 36 Hun, 343.

20Moore v. Goddard, 1? N. E. R. 535; Hancock v. Colyer, 99 Mass. 187; Levisohn v. Wagner, 76 Ala. 412; Howland v. Spencer, 14 N. H. 580; Fuller v. Jewett, 37 Vt. 473; Bowker v. Hill, 60 Me. 172; Gros-ners v. Farmers' Bank, 13 Conn. 104; Moore v. Pillow, 3 Humph. 448; Allen v. Erie City Bank, 57 Pa. 129; Deacon v. Oliver, 14 How. 610, semble; Ellison v. Tuttle. 26 Tex. 283. The case of Trunkey v. Crosby, 33 Minn. 464, seems to be contra.

21 See note 16, supra,

22 See Louisiana Ice Co. v. State Nat Bank, 1 McGloin, 181.

23 Comm. Bank v. Armstrong, 148 U. S. 50; Anheuser-Busch Ass'n v. Clayton, 56 Fed. R 759,13 U. S. App. 295. See Sec. 133, ante.

24 Wallace v. Stone, 107 Mich. 190; Hunt v. Townsend, 26 S. W. R 310;

Continental Nat. Bank v. Weems, 69 Tex. 489; and see Sec. 133, ante.

25 St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Johnston, 133 U. S. 566; Peck v. First Nat-Bank, 43 Fed. R. 357. Imp. & Trad. Bank v. Peters, 123 N. Y. 272, recognizes the principle, but the case is not correctly decided. A primary bank in an insolvent condition received a collection. It was apparently indorsed by the holder for credit. Therefore the primary bank became a trustee. It sent the collection to its correspondent. The correspondent collected and remitted by credit to the insolvent bank. It does not seem to have given the insolvent any credit upon the strength of the paper. Yet it was held that the holder could recover from the correspondent bank only the balance due from the correspondent to the insolvent. This case is wrong because the correspondent bank was not a bona fide case the relation of debtor and creditor does not result, because the act of the bank was a gross fraud.26 If for any reason the correspondent bank fails to pay over the funds collected, the primary bank is liable in those jurisdictions which recognize the rule,27 but in other states the holder must sue the correspondent bank.28 The primary bank having received the funds must perform its duty by crediting them or paying them over. It cannot refuse because the paper collected was given to defraud creditors, unless it was a creditor;29 but it may refuse if it is enjoined from so doing by some legal process,30 or if the true owner has given it notice not to pay over the proceeds.31 The bank must pay to a third party if it has been so directed.32 If it pays a collection by mistake it may recover the payment,33 unless the collection was upon itself.34 But if it pays a collection on itself it may set up, if such was the fact, that the payment was merely provisional.35 If the collection is upon another bank it may recover the amount if it pays to the holder through a mistake in thinking the collection paid,36 even though the maker or drawer of the paper is insolvent.37 When, through mistake, it has paid by a credit it may reholder. But the question was not in the case because the party prejudiced by this ruling in the lower court did not appeal.

26 There is no question that the relation does not become debtor and creditor if the remittance is made to the primary bank after notice of insolvency. See next section. Hence the same must be true where the primary bank never became the bailor on account of its fraud in concealing its insolvent condition.

27 See Sec. 181, ante.

28 See Sec. 181, ante.

29 First Nat Bank v. Lippel, 9 Colo. 594

30 Louisiana Ice Co. v. State Nat. Bank, 1 McGloin, 181.

31 First Nat. Bank v. Bache, 71 Pa. 213; Union Bank v. Johnson, 9 Gill & J. 297.

32 Wiedsport Bank v. Park Bank, 2 Robt 418. Or it may pay to the one indicated by a course of dealing with the bank. Craig Medicine Co. v. Merchants' Bank, 59 Hun, 561.

33 See the cases cited in the following notes.

34 See Whiting v. City Bank, 77 N. Y. 363, and see Sec. 158, ante.

35 First Nat. Bank v. Devenish, 15 Colo. 229.

36 First Nat. Bank v. Behan, 91 Ky. 560; Mechanics' Bank v. Earp, 4 Rawle, 384.

37 De Mayer v. State Nat Bank, 8 Neb. 104.