The strenuous efforts made by the New York courtsl to maintain their jurisdiction over a foreign corporation doing business with citizens of the state caused it to hold that a national bank before insolvency could be reached by a writ of attachment, provided it were solvent at the time of the levy;2 but if it were insolvent at the date of levy the attachment was not good.3 Some countenance was obtained for this rule by expressions of the Supreme Court of the United States,4 but now it has been settled that an attachment, prior to final judgment, against a national bank is wholly void, whether the process is issued by a state or a federal court.5 Not only is this true of a direct levy, but it is true also of an indirect levy by garnishment upon the property of the bank not capable of manual caption,6 although, of course, the national bank can be garnished for its debt to a third party.7 No jurisdiction is obtained by such a levy against a non-resident national bank as to the property taken under attachment.8 Being void, the receiver's title is not affected by it.9 He need not move to set the attachment aside;10 nor will a levy be enjoined, because there is no necessity for injunction against a void thing.11 Hence no preference can ever be gained as against a national bank by an attachment. Other fraudulent preferences given by national banks it is the

8 Turner v. First Nat. Bank, 26 Iowa, 562.

9 Chemical Nat. Bank v. Hartford Deposit Co.. 161 U. S. 1.

10 Chemical Nat. Bank v. Armstrong, 59 Fed. R. 512, 16 U. S. App. 465; Merrill v. National Bank, 173 U. S. 131. And see Sec. 331, note 6.

11 McElhenny v. First Nat. Bank, Fed. Cas. No. 8779. But see next note.

12 Irons v. Manuf. Nat. Bank, 36 Fed. R. 843; reversed, 121 U. S. 27.

13 Barrett v. Henrietta Nat. Bank, 78 Tex. 222.

14 Ellis v. Little, 27 Kan. 707. He was authorized to sell and dispose of assets.

15 In re Piatt, Fed. Cas. No. 11,211.

16 Price v. Yates, Fed. Cas. No. 11,418.

17 Henderson v. Myers, 11 Phila. 616.

18 Wallace v. Hood, 89 Fed. R. 11.

1 See Bank of Montreal v. Fidelity Nat. Bank, 1 N. Y. Supp. 852,112 N. Y. 667, overruling its former decisions in accordance with Pacific Bank v. Mixter, 124 U. S. 721.

2 Rohinson v. National Bank, 81 N. Y. 385; People's Bank v. Mechanics' Nat Bank, 62 How. Pr. 422

(the burden being on the assertor of insolvency to show it clearly). Contra, Cadle v. Tracy, 11 Blatch. 101; McDonald v. First Nat. Bank, 41111. App. 368. One case erroneously held that the bank waived the right to object by traversing. Norris v. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 30 Il1. App. 54 New York held that the receiver could not move to vacate until he was made a party by order. Tracy v. First Nat. Bank, 37 N. Y. 523. But the code changed this rule. National Bank v. Mechanics' Nat. Bank, 89 N. Y. 440.

3 Market Nat. Bank v. Pacific Nat. Bank, 93 N. Y. 648; Ray nor v. Pacific Nat. Bank, 93 N. Y. 371.

4 First Nat. Bank v. Colby, 21 Wal1 609.

5 Butler v. Coleman, 124 U. S. 721, construing Sec. Sec. 915 and 5242, Revised Statutes; Pacific Nat Bank v.

Mixter, 124 U. S. 721; Bank of Montreal v. Fidelity Nat Bank, 112 N. Y. 667; Planters' Bank v. Colby, 91 Ga. 264. A tax levy was held void as against an insolvent national bank. Woodward v. Ellsworth, 4 Colo. 580.

6 Rosenheim Co. v. Southern Nat. Bank, 46 S. W. R. 1026 (Tenn.); Saf-ford v. First Nat Bank, 61 Vt 373.

7 Conway v. Schall, 42 Wkly. Notes Cas. 328.

8 Garner v. National Bank, 66 Fed. R. 369. Central Nat Bank v. Richland Nat Bank, 52 How. Pr. 136, is an instance where the lower court was right duty of the receiver to bring suit to set aside.12 If he does not do so, either the stockholders or the creditors, by proper averment, may bring the action.13

9 But it may be set asida Harvey v. Allen, 16 Blatchf. 29.

10 This is self-evident 11First Nat Bank v. La Due, 89 Minn. 415.

Sec. 337. Payment Of Interest

In the case of national banks the claims draw interest from the date of the suspension of the bank,1 unless they are interest-bearing claims, when doubtless the contract would govern the rate of interest. The rule in regard to state banks is the same. Certificates of deposit and all other demands have been already noticed,2 except bank bills, which, it has been held, do not draw interest from the date of a general suspension, but only from the date of a demand for payment.3