The grounds for forfeiture of a charter of a bank have been already indicated.1 In the case of a savings bank a forfeiture for suspension, where no stockholder was complaining, was refused.2 Where insolvency occurs, the stockholders or the creditors have the usual remedies in such cases.3 But in some forms of savings bank one depositor cannot sue to recover his deposit, where a loss occurs because the assets belong to all the depositors alike.4 But upon a petition for a receiver there must be a charge of breach of trust by the officers unless the proceeding is given by statute.5 Unless a statute forbids it, a savings bank may make an assignment for creditors.6 But upon winding up the court cannot make a reduction on deposits and provide for payment in instalments,7 but under a statute it may do so.8 Where a receiver or assignee is appointed he has power to sue in his own name,9 or in that of the bank upon its claims. He may buy in at execution sale made for the bank.10 He may sue to set aside a fraudulent assignment or transfer by the bank,11 and he may enforce the bank's claims against its officers.12 But under one statute it was held that he could not sue upon the stockholders' liability.13 Where the managers of a savings bank have gone into equity to protect the depositors, they must realize upon the assets and pay depositors as fast as possible without sacrifice.14 The expenses of winding up a savings bank of the old type must be paid first and then the debts, and last the depositors,15 but under another system the depositors were on the same plane with the general creditors.16 The claims against the bank take precedence in the order fixed by statute or the general law. Thus the capital cannot be claimed by the depositors alone,17 but a promise by the bank to use certain securities for the benefit of its savings depositors creates a lien upon a trust in those securities;18 yet where a savings bank with powers to execute trusts received a deposit upon trust to pay the income to the widow and the surplus of income to her children, it was held that, as there was nothing to show a special deposit or anything else than a general deposit, there was no priority.19 The decision can be justified only on the ground that the bank was a trustee for the depositors. If it was not, the decision is wrong.20 A check given in payment of a deposit but itself not paid is not entitled to priority, but money paid to the bank to obtain its check to accommodate the payee

7 German Sav. Bank v. Friend, 20 N. Y. Supp. 434.

8 Pierce v. Boston Sav. Bank, 125 Mass. 593.

9 Lund v. Seamen's Bank, 20 How. Pr. 461. The real ground for this decision was that there was no sufficient showing as to the adverse claim.

1 See Sec. 319, ante.

2 State v. La. Sav. Co., 12 La. Ann. 568. Courts in Louisiana have been compelled in times past to extend much indulgence to its banks.

3 See Herron v. Vance, 17 Ind.

595; Raye v. Savings Inst., 14 Rich. Eq. 54. And see Sec. Sec. 61, 65, 67, 80, 83, 84, 85, 86 and 356. ante.

4 Bunnell v. Collinsville Sav. Soc., 38 Conn. 203: Lewis v. Lynn Inst, 148 Mass. 235.

5 Gorman v. Guardian Sav. Bank, 4 Mo. App. 180.

6 In re Miners' Bank, 13 Wkly. Notes Cas. 370.

7 In re Newport Sav. Bank, 68 Me. 396.

8 People v. Ulster Co. Sav. Inst, 133 N. Y. 689, affirming 20 N. Y. Supp. 148.

9 Hall v. Bracket, 60 N. H. 215.

10 Hobart v. Bennett, 77 Me. 401.

11 Holden v. Phelps, 135 Mass. 61.

12 Van Dyck v. McQuade, 57 How. Pr. 62; and see cases cited in notes 33 and 34 to Sec. 356, ante.

13 Herron v. Vance, 17 Ind. 595. See Sec. 66, ante.

14 In re Dane Savings Inst, 29 N. J. Eq. 109.

15 Cogswell v. Rockingham Sav. Bank, 59 N. H. 43; Stockton v. Sav. Bank, 32 N. J. Eq. 16a is a preferred claim, where the check was dishonored.21 The last case is called one of special deposit, but the facts do not bear out that construction. It was a mere general deposit, not entitled to a priority, unless the bank was known to be insolvent when it took the money. There are sometimes different classes of depositors, and if the deposits of one kind have a lien on the assets they are ahead of the ordinary depositors.22 "Where one set of depositors were entitled to profits and the other set were mere general depositors, the bank was held to be a trustee for all alike.23 A decision rendered against a class of depositors who were represented by a chairman of their committee was held binding upon all of the class in favor of the receiver.24 The depositor's right of set-off depends upon whether he is in the position of a stockholder when he has no set-off,25 or in the position of a creditor when he has.26 But a special agreement made by the bank may give him the right,27 even where he would not otherwise have it. But where the set-off exists, if there be a statute the case must fall within the statute. Makers of a joint and several note were held under a statute to have no set-off against the note for their individual deposits.28 An assignee of a depositor can set off his deposit against the bank's claim without any previous notice of the assignment being given.29 An agreement made by the bank to hold the deposit of one against the overdraft of another is not enforceable against the bank after insolvency.30

16 People v. Mechanics' Sav. Inst, 92 N. Y. 7.

17 Appeal of Fox. 93 Pa. 406.

18 Ward v. Johnson, 95 I11 215.

19 Vail v. Newark Sav. Inst, 32 N. J. Eq. 627. See Sec. 353, ante.

20 See Sec. 341, ante.

21 Stockton v. Mechanics' Sav. Bank, 32 N. J. Eq. 163.

22 Heironimus v. Sweeney, 83 Md. 146.

23 Stockton v. Mechanics' Sav. Bank, 32 N. J. Eq. 163

24 Dewey v. St Albans Trust Co., 60 Vt. 1.

25Osborn v. Byrne, 43 Conn. 155; Cogswell v. Rockingham Sav. Bank, 59 N. H. 43; Stockton v. Mechanics' Sav. Bank, 32 N. J. Eq. 163

26 The rule would be the rule as to commercial banks. See Sec. 144, ante.

27 Hall v. Paris, 59 N. H. 71, where the set-off was allowed because the deposit had been made to pay the particular debt. But the set-off was denied where the deposit represented the money borrowed. Hannon v. Williams, 34 N. J. Eq. 255. Contra, New Amsterdam Sav. Bank v. Tartters, 4 Abb N. G 215.

28 Barnstable Sav. Bank v. Snow,

128 Mass. 512. The rule was statutory. But see Sec. Sec. 140 and 144, ante.

29 Bridgewater Sav. Bank v. Soule,

129 Mass. 528.

30 Van Dyck v. McQuade, 20 Hun, 262, 85 N. Y. 616. If the lien upon the other deposit was created by the agreement, then certainly it would follow that the bank itself could not refuse to enforce its lien. If it should enforce its lien it could do so only by applying the deposit, and if the deposit had remained a general deposit, the application would, no doubt, give that general depositor a preference. But the effect of the agreement was to make the deposit special, and to make it security for the overdraft. If that is so, the special deposit clearly had a priority and the ruling was wrong.