Certain miscellaneous matters of procedure are grouped in this section. In those states which gave the president the right to bring suit for the bank, it was held that he, as the bank, could sue or be sued,1 under the allegation that he was the president of the bank,2 or the bank itself could sue.3 A failure to file reports as provided by statute may prevent a bank from suing under a statute,4 but the statute will not be applied in a federal court.5 Service upon a bank must be had in accordance with the statute applicable in the jurisdiction. A garnishment may be properly served on the cashier,6 but the answer thereto should be made by the president,7 yet the cashier generally would have the same power. A garnishment may be had without first making a demand upon the bank.8 In a suit against an unincorporated association whose members are numerous, it is not necessary to serve all the members before judgment can be taken.9 A bank could formerly, where it had not the legal title to paper, sue in the holder's name to its use.10 But this matter is to-day of some importance in suing upon paper made to the cashier. The cashier's successor may sue upon it without an indorsement by the cashier,11 and the bank itself may sue, certainly where the allegation is made that the paper was given to the bank in the name of the cashier;12 or the cashier may sue in his own name to the use of the bank,13 or he may indorse to himself and sue upon it.14 An indorsement to the cashier as cashier is an indorsement to the bank, and may be so alleged;15 or if alleged to be indorsed simply to the cashier, the allegation is sufficient. The general rule as to pleading the existence of a corporation is applicable to banks. It is not necessary to allege the corporate character specifically,16 and if the plaintiff sues as a corporation the corporate character must be denied;17 and under common-law pleading the general issue might not put in issue the corporate character of the plaintiff, where the plaintiff sued as a corporation.18 Matters of evidence have been incidentally noticed in many places in the preceding sections. It remains to be said here that an indorsement upon a note of the sum for which it was discounted, and the date of the discount, is an admission binding upon the bank.19 A defense by a stockholder to a note to the bank is immaterial where it is based upon illegal proceedings whereby he lost a dividend upon his stock.20 In an old case it was held that an action on the case against a bank did not lie for failure to pay over money which it had collected and credited.21 A judgment where all the parties liable are sued under a statute may be against any or all of the defendants.22 Proceedings supplementary to execution may be had against the officers of the bank, as holding property of the bank.23 Statutes of limitation govern banks, unless they are exempted by statute or charter.24 But it was held in Illinois that the state bank

1 Hallett v. Harrower,33 Barb. 537; Delafield v. Kinney, 24 Wend. 345; Thomas v. Dakin, 22 Wend. 9; Stanton v. Wilson, 2 Hill, 153.

2 Hallett v.Harrower, 33 Barb. 537.

3 Leonardsville Bank v. Willard. 25 N. Y. 574

4 Bank of British North Am. v. Improvement Co., 97 Cal. 28.

5 Barling v. Bank of British North Am., 50 Fed R 260.

6 Rosenberg v. First Nat. Bank, 27 S. W. R. 897.

7 Sturgis v. Rogers, 26 Ind. 1.

8 Birmingham Nat.Bank v.Mayer, 104 Ala. 634. 9Mandeville v. Riggs, 2 Pet 482.

10 Moore v. Penn, 5 Ala. 135.

11 Dutch v. Boyd, 81 Ind. 146; Barney v. Newcomb, 9 Cush. 46. The bank should sue where the real party in interest is required to sua Camden Bank v. Rogers, 4 How. Pr. 63.

12See cases cited in note 15.

13 O'Brien v. Smith, 1 Black, 99; Merchants' Bank v. McClelland, 9 Colo. 608; Johnson v. Catlin, 27 Vt 87.

14 Young v. Hudson, 99 Mo. 102.

15 Bank of U. S. v. Davis, 4 Cranch, C. C. 533; Pratt v. Topeka Bank, 12 Kan. 570.

16 Ryan v. Farmers' Bank, 5 Kan. 658; Lewis v. Bank of Ky., 12 Ohio, 132.

17 Ryan v. Farmers' Bank, 5 Kan. 658, semble. See the next note.

18 See the conflicting authorities, 5 Encyc. Plead. & Pr. 77 et seq.

19 Colgin v. State Bank, 11 Ala. 222.

20 Whittington v. Farmers' Bank, 5 Har. & J. 489.

21 Tinkham v. Heyworth, 31 III 519. The bank here had the right to credit the owner of the collection. The language of the case goes far beyond anything necessary to be decided. The case shows a deposit for collection and credit, and is therefore correctly decided.

22 Bussey v. Branch Bank, 15 Ala. 216.

23Ballston Spa Bank v. Marine Bank, 18 Wis. 490.

24 Mahone v. Central Bank, 17 Ga. 111. See the queer discussions of was the state, and hence a statute of limitation did not run against it.25 For the same reason it was held that ministerial agents of the bank sued with it were not liable for costs.26 But in Arkansas the state bank was required to give a bond upon an injunctional order.27