Under one system, at least, the creditors of a bank are divided into classes, as noteholders, depositors, and creditors, and a preference upon the assets is given in the order stated to the respective classes. Under this system it is held that balances due banks are the claims of creditors, not depositors,1 and the word "depositors " covers only general depositors, but not holders of certificates of deposit; the latter are creditors.2 Under another system, savings banks as depositors are given a preference

5 See note 2, supra.

6 Taxes are necessarily preferred. 1 See Sec. 327, ante, notes 8 and 9.

These liens may be legal or equitable in their nature. Liens at law are spoken of in the cases referred to in section 327. In the next note will be found cases where the liens were equitable. A right of set-off is equivalent in some instances to an equitable lien.

2Coates v. First Nat Bank, 91 N. Y. 26; Fourth St. Bank v. Yard-ley, 165 U. S. 634; First Nat Bank v. Clark, 134 N. Y. 368. But see First upon the assets for any balance due to them,3 but this preference given by the state statute is not binding upon a national bank.4

Nat. Bank v. Dubuque Ry. Co., 52 Iowa. 387. But where a depositor obtains drafts by his checks, which drafts are not paid, he gains no lien upon the fund, nor does he become a special depositor entitled to a priority. Jewett v. Yardley, 81 Fed. R 920.

3 See cases cited inprecedingnote.

4 See Sec. 331, ante, note 6.

1 In re State Bank, 13 Pa. Co. Ct R. 433; Appeal of Parkersburg Bank, 6 Wkly. Notes Cas. 694.

2 In re State Bank, 13 Pa. Co. Ct R.433.

3Rosenback v. Manuf. Bank, 69 N. Y. 358; In re Paiterson, 18 Hun, 221, 78 N. Y. 608. The savings bank was held to be a depositor, though interest was paid to it

4 Sixpenny Sav. Bank v. Stuyvesant Bank, Fed. Cas. No. 12,919; Davis v. Elmira Sav. Bank, 161 U. S. 275, reversing 142 N. Y. 590. It is singular how frequently the Supreme Court reverses national bank cases from New York.