The questions that arose under the state laws in the days of "wild-cat" banking as to the funds deposited to secure circulation are now obsolete. A reference to cases will be found in the notes.1 The requirement was made as to banks engaged both in issuing notes and in receiving deposits,2 and the state was merely of full inquiry into the condition of the bank, of examining all the officers or agents thereof, with power to institute proceedings to close the bank.1 The examiners provided for under the national banking law have practically the same powers,2 except that the exercise of power is primarily with the comptroller of the currency, who is also given ample powers, under the act, to take possession of the bank by an examiner or a receiver, and close it up when satisfied that the bank is insolvent,3 or where it has failed to redeem any of its circulating notes.4 The action of the comptroller is presumed to be that of the secretary of the treasury5 and is conclusive as to the receiver's authority.6 Yet it has been held that his decision is not evidence of insolvency in a suit by the receiver against the stockholders for contribution.7

3 See the next note.

4 1 Dillon on Mun. Corp. (4th ed.), sec. 357.

5 See Sec. 25, ante.

6 See 6 Thompson on Corp., 8108 et seq.

1 See Sec. Sec. 32, 33, ante.

2 See Sec. 81, post, et seq., Sec. 89, post, et seq., and Sec. 355, post.

3 See Sec. 319, post.

1 A curious attempt to prevent redemption of notes will be found in case of People v. Whittemore, 4 Mich. 27. See for various phases of obsolete law: Young v. Hughes, 12 Smedes & M. 93; Townsend v. Smith, 12 N. J. Eq. 350; Bank v. Downer, 28 Vt. 635; Commissioners v. Walker, 6 How. 143; In re Dyott, 2 Watts & S. 463; Flagg v. Hunger, 9 N. Y. 483; People v. Holmes, 3 Mich. 544; Willard v. Dubois, 29 I1L 48.

2 Marion Sav. Bank v. Dunkin, 54 Ala. 471; Marine Bank v. State Auditor, 14 I11. 185; Ewing v. Robeson, 15 Ind. 26. But in other cases the security was for the depositors the custodian of the fund and not a guarantor against loss by the note-holders.3 The fund seems to have been in some cases a general fund contributed by all the banks, and the whole fund was liable for the notes of each bank.4 The idea that underlay all these provisions has been incorporated into the national banking law, by providing for a deposit of bonds to secure circulation. The government is a trustee of this deposit, not only for the note-holders, but for all the creditors,5 in the sense that after payment of the notes the surplus must be restored to the creditors of the bank. The government can claim no priority for its own debts.6