As we have seen, the courts consider the matter of transferring the pass-book as controlling, where the pass-book is required to be produced for payment.1 But the pass-book is not a document that is negotiable, nor would a title pass with the possession, as in the case of an instrument which is negotiable upon delivery, although the rule of the bank declares that a payment upon the book produced shall be a valid payment.2 Singularly enough the courts give effect to part of the rule by holding the transfer of the book necessary to convey title, yet deny to the rule efficacy to make the pass-book negotiable. Yet-the same courts which require a transfer upon the bank's books to convey the full legal title deny that such a transfer is necessary to convey the legal title in the case of certificates of stock made transferable only on the books. But it might be said that a pass-book obtained by fraud, when transferred to a bona fide purchaser, conveys a good title,3 on the theory that the transfer conveyed an equitable title and that the defense of bona fide purchaser would be good. But such a defense is good only in conjunction with a legal title. The delivery of the pass-book with the intention of transferring gives the transferee an equitable title.4 An assignment of the deposit noticed to the bank has the same effect.5 In either case the transfer is good against subsequent attachments or garnishments,6 and hence would be good as against a subsequent assignee, or an executor or administrator. The deposit is without doubt subject to garnishment,7 but the garnishment only reaches the interest that the debtor has in the deposit; and while the bank would, no doubt, be protected for recognizing a garnishment, if it had no notice of the depositor's assignment, yet the creditor obtains by the garnishment no more than the rights of his debtor,8 and the debtor, whether he has made a written assignment or not, has parted with all but the mere legal title.* The rule is the same for an assignment as against an administrator.10 The assignee except by the aid of a statute can--not maintain an action in his own name,11 but can sue in the name of his assignor or of his personal representative.12 The rules of the bank cannot prevent gifts of the deposit inter vivos,13 or gifts causa mortis, and after notice of the donee's claim the bank cannot disregard his rights;14 nor when it has notice of assignment can it disregard the rights of the assignee, though another person presents the book with a subsequent assignment.15

9 Boone v. Citizens' Sav. Bank, 21 Hun, 235; Fowler v. Bowery Sav. Bank, 47 Hun, 399.

10 Fairfield Sav. Bank v. Small, 90 Me. 546. Since there was evidence to create a trust, the form of the deposit being such evidence, this case is wrong in its language, although the decision is correct, since the trust was rebutted. But see Kennebec Sav. Bank v. Fogg, 83 Ma 374; In re Smith, 17 Abb. N. C. 78.

11 Brown v. Brown, 23 Barb. 565. Compare Gerrish v. New Bedford Inst, 128 Mass. 159.

1 See cases cited in note 6 to last section, which ought not to have been considered as cases of transfer.

2McCaskill v. Conn. Sav. Bank, 60 Conn. 300; Smith v. Brooklyn Sav. Bank, 101 N. Y. 58. A by-law can not make the book negotiable. Witrte v. Vincent. 43 Cal. 325.

3 See McCaskill v. Conn. Sav. Bank, 60 Conn. 300.

4 Pierce v. Boston Sav. Bank, 129 Mass. 425.

5 Kingman v. Perkins, 105 Mass. 111.

6 See case last cited and Taft v. Bowker, 132 Mass. 277.

7 Nichols v. Schofield, 2 R I. 123, and cases cited in last two notes.

8 Commonwealth v. Scituate Sav. Bank, 137 Mass. 301; Taft v. Bowker, 132 Mass. 277; Norton v. Piscataqua Ins. Co., Ill Mass. 532.

9 Appeal of Guinan, 70 Conn. 842; Pol ley v. Hicks, 50 N. E. R 809; Watson v. Watson, 69 Vt. 243.

10Foss v. Lowell Sav. Bank, 111 Mass. 285.

11 Howard v. Savings Bank, 40 Vt. 597.

12 Foss v. Lowell Sav. Bank, 111 Mass. 285.

13 Gammond v. Bowery Sav. Bank, 15 Daly, 483. Compare McNamara v. McDonald, 69 Conn. 484.

14 Walsh v. Bowery Sav. Bank, 7 N. Y. Supp. 669.