bank and the depositor.141 Payment to the creditor pursuant to a judgment binding upon the depositor discharges the bank from liability to the depositor.142 A bank is not affected by a garnishment process, unless it accurately names the depositor, and unless the bank be shown to have knowledge of the identity of the depositor and the person named.143

Death of Depositor

Upon the death of a depositor, his rights in respect to the deposit, of course, pass by operation of law to his executor or administrator.144 A balance in bank may be the subject of a bequest, and, although the bank is merely a debtor for the amount, a bequest of the testator's money is usually construed as covering bank deposits.145 The effect of the death of a

141 Moors v. Goddard, 147 Mass. 287, 17 N. E. 532; Rice v. Third Nat. Bank, 97 Mich. 414, 56 N. W. 776. See, also, Washington Brick, Lime & Mfg. Co. v. Traders' Nat. Bank, 46 Wash. 23, 89 Pac. 157, 123 Am. St. Rep. 912. See "Banks and Banking," Dec. Dig. (Key No.) §§ 128-130; Cent. Dig. §§ 319-333; “Garnishment," Dec. Dig. (Key No.) § 56; Cent. Dig. §§ 110, 111.

142 Randall v. Way, 111 Mass. 506; Leonard v. New Bedford Five Cents Savings Bank, 116 Mass. 210; Woods v. Milford F. C. Sav. Inst., 58 N. H. 184. See "Banks and Banking," Dec. Dig. (Key No.) §§ 128-130; Cent. Dig. §§ 319-333; “Garnishment," Dec. Dig. (Key No.) 56; Cent. Dig. §§ 110, 111.

143 German Nat. Bank of Denver v. National State Bank, 5 Colo. App. 427, 39 Pac. 71; Terry v. Sisson, 125 Mass. 560. See "Banks and Banking," Dec. Dig. (Key No.) §§ 128-130; Cent. Dig. §§ 328-330; “Garnishment," Dec. Dig. (Key No.) § 56; Cent. Dig. §§ 110, 111.

144 Schluter v. Bowery Savings Bank, 117 N. Y. 125, 22 N. E. 572, 5 L. R. A. 541, 15 Am. St. Rep. 494; Maas v. German Savings Bank in City of New York, 176 N. Y. 377, 68 N. E. 658, 98 Am. St. Rep. 689. See cases in note 105, supra. See "Executors and Administrators," Dec. Dig. (Key No.) §§ 43, 519; "Banks and Banking," Cent. Dig. § 332

145 Mann v. Mann, 14 Johns. (N. Y.) 1, 7 Am. Dec. 416; Beck v. McGillis, 9 Barb. (N. Y.) 35; Jenkins v. Fowler, 63 N. H. 244. Cf. Hancock v. Lyon, 67 N. H. 216, 29 Atl. 638. See, also, In re Caldwell's Estate, 8 Del. Ch. 358, 68 Atl. 525; Shelby's Ex'rs v. Shelby, 36 Ky. (6 Dana) 60; American Bible Soc. v. Pratt, 9 Allen (Mass.)

depositor upon his outstanding check will be considered later.146

PAYMENT

17. IN GENERAL-It is the implied agreement of a bank to pay in money at its banking house the amount standing to the credit of a general depositor upon his order or demand. The order may be made by a check or other order for payment, including, in some jurisdictions, a note or acceptance payable at the bank, or, if a certificate of deposit has been issued, by the presentment of the certificate. 18. INTEREST-In the absence of special agreement, interest upon a deposit is not payable by the bank; but, when demand for payment of a deposit is made and refused, interest by way of damages runs from the time of the demand.

Payment of Deposit-Demand

It is the obligation of a bank to pay its depositor upon demand.147 "The legal relation of banker and depositor, upon

109; Boyd v. Satterwhite, 12 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 487. Cf. Gale v. Drake, 51 N. H. 78; Adams v. Jones, 59 N. C. 221; Wyatt v. Norris, 66 W. Va. 667, 66 S. E. 1016. See "Wills," Dec. Dig. (Key No.) § 566; Cent. Dig. § 1238.

146 Post, p. 153.

147 Ward v. Johnson, 95 Ill. 215; McBee v. Purcell Nat. Bank, 1 Ind. T. 288, 37 S. W. 55; Aurora Nat. Bank v. Dils, 18 Ind. App. 319, 48 N. E. 19; Elliott v. Capital City State Bank, 128 Iowa, 275, 103 N. W. 777, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1130, 111 Am. St. Rep. 198; Girard Bank v. Bank of Penn Township, 39 Pa. 92, 80 Am. Dec. 507; Johnson v. Shuey, 40 Wash. 22, 82 Pac. 123. Where a bank discontinues banking operations, it waives demand. Arnold v. Hart, 176 Ill. 442, 52 N. E. 936; ante, p. 14.

If the bank remits by draft at the depositor's request, the risk is his. Jung v. Second Ward Savings Bank, 55 Wis. 364, 13 N. W. 235, 42 Am. Rep. 719. Cf. Cutler v. American Exch. Nat. Bank, 113 N. Y. 593, 21 N. E. 710, 4 L. R. A. 328. See "Banks and Banking," Dec. Dig. (Key No.) § 133; Cent. Dig. §§ 339–352.

a general deposit, is, in most respects, that of debtor and creditor. By the deposit the latter parts with, and the former acquires, the title to the specific money deposited, and the one becomes indebted to the other in the amount of the sum deposited. But, by universal understanding on the part of bankers and depositors, there is a condition attached to the undertaking of the bank. It is not its duty, as it is that of an ordinary debtor, to seek the creditor and pay him wherever found; it does not undertake to pay without respect to place -to pay absolutely and immediately. But its engagement is to pay at its banking house, when payment shall be called for there." 148 In other words, it is the duty of the bank to pay upon demand.

Demand-How Made

The demand is usually made by the presentment of a check,149 or, if a certificate of deposit has been issued, by the presentment of the certificate.150 But, unless a certificate has been issued, no particular form of order or demand is requisite. 151 The bank may, of course, pay upon an oral order, if it sees fit; 152 but it seems that by the usage of banks a bank may require a written order.153

148 Branch v. Dawson, 33 Minn. 399, 23 N. W. 552, per Gilfillan, C. J. See "Banks and Banking," Dec. Dig. (Key No.) § 133; Cent. Dig. 88 339-352.

149 Post, p. 96.

150 Post, p. 79.

151 Neff v. Greene County Nat. Bank, 89 Mo. 581, 1 S. W. 747; Weedsport Bank v. Park Bank, *41 N. Y. 561. See "Banks and Banking," Dec. Dig. (Key No.) § 133; Cent. Dig. §§ 339–346; “Bills and Notes," Dec. Dig. (Key No.) §§ 400-405; Cent. Dig. §§ 1066–1071.

152 First Nat. Bank of Cambridge, Ill. v. Hall, 119 Ala. 64, 24 South. 526; Rice v. Bank of Camas Prairie, 5 Idaho, 39, 47 Pac. 856; McEwen v. Davis, 39 Ind. 109; Ellis v. First Nat. Bank, 22 R. I. 565, 48 Atl. 936. See "Banks and Banking," Dec. Dig. (Key No.) § 133; Cent. Dig. §§ 339–346; “Bills and Notes," Dec. Dig. (Key No.) §§ 400405; Cent. Dig. §§ 1066-1071.

153 McEwen v. Davis, 39 Ind. 109; McLean v. Lowe, 126 Ind. 449, 26 N. E. 398. See "Banks and Banking," Dec. Dig. (Key No.) § 133;

Note or Acceptance Payable at Bank

Whether a promissory note or an acceptance of a bill of exchange, by its terms payable at the bank, is equivalent to an order to the bank to pay the note or bill for the account of the maker or acceptor, is a question on which the authorities conflict. In England it has been held that it has such an effect, and that the bank, having funds, is bound to honor its customers' notes and acceptances made so payable in the same manner as his checks.1 In some states the English rule has been followed, at least to the extent of holding that such a note confers authority on the bank to apply the maker's deposit to its payment,155 or even, perhaps, to advance the amount and charge it as a loan to the maker.156 In other states it has been held that such a note is not equivalent to a check, and confers no authority upon the bank, but that by

154

Cent. Dig. §§ 339-446; "Bills and Notes," Dec. Dig. (Key No.) §§ 400405; Cent. Dig. §§ 1066-1071.

154 Robarts v. Tucker, 16 Q. B. 560; Kymer v. Laurie, 18 L. J. Q. B. 218. See “Banks and Banking," Dec. Dig. (Key No.) § 144; Cent. Dig. $$ 415, 418.

155 Bedford Bank v. Acoam, 125 Ind. 584, 25 N. E. 713, 9 L. R. A. 560, 21 Am. St. Rep. 258 (bank may hold note as purchaser and set off against deposit); Griffin v. Rice, 1 Hilt. (N. Y.) 184; Indig v. National City Bank of Brooklyn, 80 N. Y. 100; Francis v. People's Nat. Bank, 1 Ohio N. P. 281. See, also, Lazier v. Horan, 55 Iowa, 75, 7 N. W. 457, 39 Am. Rep. 167 (cf. Bank of Montreal v. Ingerson, 105 Iowa, 349, 75 N. W. 351); Stone v. Demarest, 67 App. Div. 549, 73 N. Y. Supp. 903; Riverside Bank v. First Nat. Bank, 74 Fed. 276, 20 C. C. A. 181.

The maker may withdraw the authority before the bank has acted. Egerton v. Fulton Nat. Bank, 43 How. Prac. (N. Y.) 216.

A deposit, with direction to apply to a note, does not appropriate it to that purpose, so that the holder can recover from the bank. Ætna Nat. Bank v. Fourth Nat. Bank of City of New York, 46 N. Y. 82, 7 Am. Rep. 314. See "Banks and Banking," Dec. Dig. (Key No.) § 144; Cent. Dig. §§ 415-418.

156 See Mandeville v. Union Bank, 9 Cranch, 9, 3 L. Ed. 639. See "Banks and Banking," Dec. Dig. (Key No.) § 144; Cent. Dig. §§ 415–

making the note payable at the bank the maker simply fixes the place of presentment for convenience in changing indorsers.157 In states which have enacted the Negotiable Instruments Law this question is set at rest by the provision that "where the instrument is made payable at a bank it is equivalent to an order to the bank to pay the same for the account of the principal debtor thereon.” 158

Payment in Money

The obligation of the bank is to pay in money; that is, in legal tender. If it credits the account of the depositor with money, it is not relieved of the obligation to pay money because the deposit was made in funds that were not legal tender,159 or in depreciated bills,160 or in bills that have subsequently depreciated. 161 Conversely, it may pay in a form of

157 Wood v. Merchants' Savings, Loan & Trust Co., 41 Ill. 267; Ridgely Nat. Bank v. Patton, 109 Ill. 479; Grissom v. Commercial Nat. Bank, 87 Tenn. 350, 10 S. W. 774, 3 L. R. A. 273, 10 Am. St. Rep. 669 (citing authorities). See, also, National Exch. Bank v. National Bank of North America, 132 Mass. 147; Elliott v. Worcester Trust Co., 189 Mass. 542, 75 N. E. 944; Citizens' Bank of Steubenville v. Carson, 32 Mo. 191; Adams v. Hackensack Improvement Commission, 44 N. J. Law, 638, 43 Am. Rep. 406. See "Banks and Banking," Dec. Dig. (Key No.) § 144; Cent. Dig. §§ 415–418.

See "Banks and Banking,"

158 Negotiable Instruments Law, § 87. Dec. Dig. (Key No.) § 144; Cent. Dig. §§ 415–418.

159 Corbit v. President, etc., of Bank of Smyrna, 2 Har. (Del.) 235, 30 Am. Dec. 635. See "Banks and Banking," Dec. Dig. (Key No.) § 133; Cent. Dig. §§ 347-350.

160 Bank of Kentucky v. Wister, 2 Pet. 318, 7 L. Ed. 437 (bills of depositary bank passing at 50 per cent. discount). See "Banks and Banking," Dec. Dig. (Key No.) § 133; Cent. Dig. §§ 347-350.

161 Marine Bank of Chicago v. Chandler, 27 Ill. 525, 81 Am. Dec. 249; Chicago Marine & Fire Ins. Co. v. Carpenter, 28 Ill. 360; Willets v. Paine, 43 Ill. 432.

But, where Confederate treasury notes were deposited while such notes were bankable funds, the depositor could not recover the amount as deposited in money. Foster v. Bank of New Orleans, 21 La. Ann. 338. See, also, Dabney v. Bank of State, 3 S. C. 124. See