It is usual, after a trustee or a receiver is in possession of the assets of the bank, for such officer to advertise the time for the presentation of claims. But he may pass upon claims before the date fixed in the notice;1 nor does one who has failed to present his claim within the time lose it, where he has been guilty of no laches;2 but he loses his right if the fund is distributed and he had knowledge of the proceedings,3 although, in the absence of a statute preventing such action, he could still sue the bank, if it had a corporate existence. The claim may be filed in the action wherein the receiver is appointed.4 The claim of a debtor is a single one in the sense that he cannot claim the right to have two claims allowed for the same claim, and have dividends upon each until he has received enough to satisfv the claim.5 Yet, if he holds collaterals, he is entitled to the allowance of his whole claim, without regard to payments received by him upon the collaterals, whether before or after the insolvency.6 He is entitled, of course, to but one satisfaction, and the receiver may redeem the collaterals if they are more than suf-

19 In re Bank of Minnesota, 73 N. W. R 1096. 20 Robinson v. Hawes, 20 N. Y. 84.

1 Bissell v. Heath, 98 Mich. 472.

2 Glenn v. Farmers' Bank, 80 N. C. 97.

3Glenn v. Farmers' Bank, 84 N. C. 631.

4 Blake v. State Sav. Bank, 12 Wash. 619. This decision is wholly wrong as an authority on the loss of the deposit in the insolvent bank by mingling. See Sec. 344. post.

5Latimer v. Wood, 73 Fed. R. 1001, 36 U. & App. 581.

6 Merrill v. National Bank, 173 U. S. 131; In Matter of Bates, 118 111. 524; Chemical Nat Bank v. Armstrong, 59 Fed. R 372, 16 U. S. App. 465, reversing 50 Fed. R 798; People v. Remington, 121 N. Y. 336; Bank v. Haug, 47 N. W. R 33. Contra, First Nat. Bank v. Williamson, 35 S. W. R 573. Here the creditor had his principal claim, and also collateral notes, indorsed by the bank; he claimed dividends on the principal debt and on the collaterals.

7 In the Matter of Bates, 118 111. 524.

8 Bank v. Kendrick, 92 Tenn. 437. 9Dobson v. Simonton, 95 N. C.

312.

10 In re Insurance Co., 9 Lane. Bar, 119.

11 In re Humboldt Trust Co., 3 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 621. The agent of the shareholders of a national bank cannot set off against the pledgee of stock of a shareholder the stockholder's indebtedness. McConville v. Means, 21 Wkly. Law Bul. 193.

12 In re Columbian Bank, 147 Pa. 422.

13 City Bank v. Crossland, 65 Ga. 734. 14 Appeal of Craig, 92 Pa. 396.

15 This would be possible in an equity suit, where the judgment could be so drawn. It would be impossible at law.

16 Warrensburg Asso. v. Zoll, 83 Mo. 94.

17Dowd v. City Bank, 59 N. H. 391.

18 Citizens' Sav. Bank v. Ingham, 98 Mich. 173.

19 See Sec. 317, ante.

20 See Sec. 323, ante.