Michigan. Lonier v. State Savings Bank, 149 Mich. 483, 112 N. W. 1119.

New Jersey. Creveling v. Bank, 46 N. J. L. 255, 50 Am. Rep. 417; National Bank v. Berrall, 70 N. J. L. 757, 103 Am. St. Rep. 821, 66 L. R. A. 599, 58 Atl. 189.

New York. First National Bank v. Clark, 134 N. Y. 368, 17 L. R. A. 580, 32 N. E. 38.

Ohio. Cincinnati, etc., R. R. v. Bank, 54 O. S. 60, 56 Am. St. Rep. 700, 31 L. R. A. 653, 42 N. E. 700.

A bank, differing from the ordinary debtor, is bound as between itself and the depositor to honor his checks. Accordingly, it is held in some jurisdictions that, except as the rule may be modified by statute, a check is an assignment of the money owing from the drawee to the drawer up to the amount of the check.11

6Bank v. Brewing Co., 60 O. S. 161, 40 Am. St. Rep. 660, 33 N. E. 1064.

7 Laclede Bank v. Schuler, 120 U. S. 611, 30 L. ed. 704; Harrison v. Wright, 100 Ind. 616, 50 Am. Rep. 805; Akin v. Jones, 93 Tenn. 353, 42 Am. St. Rep. 921, 25 L. R. A. 523, 27 S. W. 669.

8 Duncan v. Berlen, 60 N. Y. 151; Commercial Bank v. Chilberg, 14 Wash. 247, 53 Am. St. Rep. 873, 44 Pac. 264.

9 Hence drawer's death revokes the check. Bernard v. Bank, 43 La. Ann. 60, 12 L. R. A. 302, 8 So. 702. The holder has no right of action against the bank. First National Bank v. Clark, 134 N. Y. 368, 17 L. R. A. 580, 32 N. E. 38.

10 United States v. Rundle, 107 Fed. 227, 52 L. R. A. 505.

11 Illinois. Niblack v. Bank, 169 111. 517, 61 Am. St. Rep. 203, 39 L. R. A. 159, 48 N. E. 438; Gage Hotel Co. v. Bank, 171 111. 531, 63 Am. St. Rep. 270, 39 L. R. A. 479, 49 N. E. 420.

Iowa. Kuhnes v. Cahill, 128 Ia. 594, 104 N. W. 1025; McClain v. Torkelson, - la. - , 174 N. W. 42 (obiter, since the case was controlled by the Negotiable Instruments Law).

Kentucky. Boswell v. Citizens' Savings Bank, 123 Ky. 485, 96 S. W. 797 (before the Negotiable Instruments Law).

Maine. Whitehouse v. Whitehouse, 90 Me. 468, 60 Am. St. Rep. 278, 38 Atl. 374.

Maryland. Kellas v. Slack ft Slack Co., 129 Md. 535, 99 Atl. 677.

Minnesota. Varley v. Sims, 100 Minn. 331, 117 Am. St. Rep. 694, 111 N. W. 269.

Nebraska. Fonner v. Smith, 31 Neb. 107, 28 Am. St. Rep. 510, 11 L. R. A. 528, 47 N. W. 632.

South Carolina. Loan ft Savings Bank v. Farmers' ft Merchants' Bank, 74 S. Car. 210, 114 Am. St. Rep. 991, 54 S. E. 364.

Texas. Harris County v. Campbell, 68 Tex. 22, 2 Am. St. Rep. 467, 3 S. W. 243; Neely v. Bank, 25 Tex. Civ. App. 513, 61 S. W. 559.

Wisconsin. Raesser v. Bank, 112 Wis. 591, 88 Am. St. Rep. 979, 56 L. R. A. 174, 88 N. W. 618 (before the Negotiable Instruments Law).

Where this view is entertained the death of the drawer does not revoke the check.12 The holder of an unaccepted check has a right to the fund against a creditor of the drawer who attaches after the check is drawn and before it is presented.13 So where A had deposited a fund in his own name, the equitable interest of which belonged to B, and A gave B a check for the fund which B indorsed to C, C has a claim to the fund prior to the attaching creditors of B.14 The holder of the check may maintain an action against the bank if having funds of the drawer in its hands it refuses payment,15 even if the check is drawn for less than the amount of the fund,16 and if the bank has made an assignment he has the same rights as against the assignee that the drawer would have had.17 Even where a check operates as an assignment, the bank may before presentment appropriate the money due the drawer to the payment of a debt due from him to the bank, and such appropriation will be upheld as against the holder of the check,18 though it has been held that the bank can not make such appropriation after presentment.19 If the bank assigns, before payment of the check, he has no greater rights than the drawer would have had.20 Even where a check operates as an assignment, a cashier's check evidencing a deposit is a mere change in the form of the evidence of indebtedness and gives no priority to the holder as against a receiver of the bank21

12Raesser v. Bank, 112 Wis. 591, 88 Am. St. Rep. 979, 56 L. R. A. 174, 88 N. W. 618.

13Neely v. Bank, 25 Tex. Civ. App. 513, 61 S. W. 559; Dillman v. Carlin, 105 Wis. 14, 76 Am. St. Rep. 902, 80 N. W 932.

See also Boswell v. Citizens' Savings Bank, 123 Ky. 485, 96 S. W. 797.

This is true especially where the check is for the entire amount of the deposit. Varley v. Sims, 100 Minn. 331, 117 Am. St. Rep. 694, 111 N. W. 269.

14 Hemphill v. Yerkes, 132 Pa. St. 545, 19 Am. St. Rep. 607, 19 Atl. 342.

15Gage Hotel Co. v. Bank, 171 111. 531, 63 Am. St. Rep. 270, 39 L. R. A. 479, 49 N. E. 420; Lester v. Given, 71 Ky. (8 Bush.) 357; Fogarties v. Bank, 12 Rich. (S. Car.) 518, 78 Am. Dec. 468;

Loan & Savings Bank v. Farmers' & Merchants' Bank, 74 S. Car. 210, 114 Am. St. Rep. 991, 54 S. E. 364.

16Fonner v. Smith, 31 Neb. 107, 28 Am. St. Rep. 510, 11 L. R. A. 528, 47 N. W. 632.

17 Howes v. Blackwell, 107 N. Car. 196, 22 Am. St. Rep. 870, 12 S. E. 245.

16 Bank v. Trust Co., 149 111. 343, 23 L. R. A. 611, 36 N. E. 1029; Wyman v. Bank, 181 111. 279, 72 Am. St. Rep. 259, 48 L. R. A. 565, 54 N. E. 946.

l9Niblack v. Bank, 169 111. 517, 61 Am. St. Rep. 203, 39 L. R. A. 159, 48 N. E. 438.

20 Howes v. Blackwell, 107 N. Car. 196, 22 Am. St. Rep. 870, 12 S. E. 245.

21 Clark v. Trust Co., 186 111. 440, 78 Am. St. Rep. 294, 53 L. R. A. 232, 57 N. E. 1061.

Even where a check does not, of itself, operate as an assignment, the entire transaction, of which the delivery of the check was a part, may show that an assignment was intended; and in such case full effect will be given to such intention.22 If the bank delivers to A a pass-book, and A sells this pass-book to C, and also gives to C a check on such bank for such amount, the transaction amounts to an assignment by A to C of such account.23 The fact that A makes a special deposit to pay the check,24 especially if he indorses the deposit slip over to the payee of the check,25 or the fact that A leaves an amount in the bank to meet an outstanding check,26 is held, in some jurisdictions, to show that an assignment is intended.