The same principles that apply to orders and to bills of exchange apply in most jurisdictions to bank checks. The relation between a bank and a depositor is that of debtor and creditor, and not that of bailor and bailee. By the weight of authority an unaccepted check is not an assignment of the fund in the hands of the drawee, but merely an authority to the bank to pay the amount of such check to the holder.1 This rule has been enacted in statutory form in the Negotiable Instruments Law, and no liability is created against the drawee by giving a check which has not been accepted or certified by the drawee.2 Even under the Negotiable Instruments Law, a check has been held to amount to an assignment as between the drawer and the drawee;3 and the drawer's administrator can not recover from the drawee the amount of a check which is paid after drawer's death and in ignorance thereof.4

20 United States. Christmas v. Russell, 81 U. S. (14 Wall.) 69, 20 L. ed. 762.

Minnesota. Varlev v. Sims. 100 Minn. 331, 117 Am. St. Rep. 694, 8 L. R. A. (N.S.) 828, 10 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 473, 111 N. W. 269.

New Jersey. Cope v. C. B. Walton Co., 77 N. J. Eq. 512, 76 Atl. 1044.

Ohio. Gardner v. Bank, 39 O. S. 600.

Wisconsin. Croak v. First National Bank, 83 Wis. 31, 35 Am. St. Rep. 17, 52 N. W. 1131.

21 See Sec. 2261.

1 United States. Laclede Bank v. Schuler, 120 U. S. 511, 30 L. ed. 704; Mining Co. v. Brown, 124 U. S. 385, 31 L. ed. 424; Bowker v. Haight & Freese Co., 146 Fed. 257; Eastern Milling & Export Co. v. Eastern Milling & Export Co., 146 Fed. 761 [decree affirmed, Corn Exch. National Bank v. Locher, 151 Fed. 764, 81 C. C. A. 388]; Eastman Kodak Co. v. National Park Bank, 231 Fed. 320.

California. Donohue-Kelly Banking Co. v. Pacific Co., 138 Cal. 183, 94 Am. St. Rep. 28, 71 Pac. 93.

Georgia. Reviere v. Chambliss, 120 Ga. 714, 48 S. E. 122.

Indiana. Harrison v. Wright, 100 Ind. 515, 50 Am. Rep. 805.

Indian Territory. Love v. Ardmore Stock Exch., 5 Ind. Terr. 202, 67 L. R. A. 617, 82 S. W. 721; Poland v. Love, 7 Ind. Terr. 42, 103 S. W. 759.

Kansas. Clark v. Toronto Bank, 72 Kan. 1, 115 Am. St. Rep. 173, 2 L. R. A. (N.S.) 83, 82 Pac. 582.

Massachusetts. Carr v. Bank, 107 Mass. 45, 9 Am. Rep. 6.

Michigan.. Brennan v. Bank, 62 Mich. 343, 28 N. W. 881; Lonier v. State Savings Bank, 149 Mich. 483, 112 N. W. 1119.

Minnesota. Northern Trust Co. v. Rogers, 60 Minn. 208, 51 Am. St. Rep. 526, 62 N. W. 273; First National Bank v. McConnell, 103 Minn. 340, 123 Am. St. Rep. 336, 14 L. R. A. (N.S.) 616, 114 N. W. 1129.

Nebraska. Superior National Bank v. National Bank of Commerce, 99 Neb. 833, 157 N. W. 1023.

New Jersey. National Bank v. Ber-rall, 70 N. J. L. 757, 103 Am. St. Rep. 821, 66 L. R. A. 599, 58 Atl. 189.

Ohio. Bank v. Brewing Co., 50 O. S. 151, 40 Am. St. Rep. 660, 33 N. E. 1054; Cincinnati, etc., R. R. v. Bank, 54 O. S. 60, 56 Am. St. Rep. 700, 31 L. R. A. 653, 42 N. E. 700.

As between the bank and the holder of the check, the holder of the check can not maintain an action against the bank, if the bank on which the check is drawn refuses payment, even if the bank has in its hands funds of the drawer.5 The bank may refuse to pay the check if the depositor is indebted to the bank on an overdue note in a sum in excess of the amount in which his deposit exceeds the check.6 Hence, if the drawer becomes insolvent and makes an assignment, the funds in the hands of the drawee should be paid to the assignee of the drawer and not to the payee.7 So if before the check is presented a creditor of the drawer brings proceedings in garnishment, to which the bank is made a party, such creditor's claim is superior to that of the holder of the check.8 Even if the check is given for the exact amount of the deposit it is not an assignment.9 Hence, cashing indorsed time checks and holding them as vouchers does not amount to an assignment of the claims of the laborers evidenced thereby.10

Oklahoma. Walters National Bank v. Bantock, 41 Okla. 153, L. R. A. 1916C, 531, 137 Pac. 717; Day v. Charlton, - Okla. - , 160 Pac. 606.

Pennsylvania. Bank v. Shoemaker, 117 Pa. St. 94, 2 Am. St. Rep. 649, 11 Atl. 304.

Tennessee. Akin v. Jones, 93 Tenn. 353, 42 Am. St. Rep. 921, 25 L. R. A. 523, 27 S. W. 669.

Virginia. Jones v. Crumpler, 119 Va. 143, 89 S. E. 232.

Washington. Commercial Bank v. Chilberg, 14 Wash. 247, 53 Am. St. Rep. 873, 44 Pac. 264; National Market Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 100 Wash. 377, 174 Pac. 479 [sub nomine, National Market Co. v. Coit, 1 A. L. R. 450] (on rehearing).

An assignment of a check which is given for a labor claim does not amount to an assignment of such claim and does, not give a right of action on the contractor's bond. National Market Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 100 Wash. 377, 174 Pac. 479 [sub nomine, National Market Co. v. Coit, 1 A. L. R. 430] (on rehearing). 2 United States. Eastman Kodak Co. v. National Park Bank, 231 Fed. 320.

Nebraska. Superior National Bank v. National Bank of Commerce, 99 Neb. 833, 157 N. W. 1023.

New Mexico. Elgin v. Gross-Kelly, 20 N. M. 450, L. R. A. 1916A, 711, 150 Pac. 922.

Oklahoma. Walters National Bank v. Bantock, 41 Okla. 153, L. R. A. 1915C, 531, 137 Pac. 717.

Tennessee. People's National Bank v. Swift, 134 Tenn. 175, 183 S. W. 725.

Virginia. Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. First National Bank, 102 Va. 753, 47 S. E. 837; Jones v. Crumpler, 119 Va. 143, 89 S. E. 232.

Washington. National Market Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., - Wash. - , 174 Pac. 479.

3 McClain v. Torkelson, - Ia. - , 174 N. W. 42; Elgin v. Gross-Kelly, 20 N. M. 460, L. R. A. 1916A, 711, 150 Pac. 922.

4 Elgin v. Gross-Kelly, 20 N. M. 450, L. R. A. 1916A, 711, 150 Pac. 922.

5United States. Washington First National Bank v. Whitman, 94 U. S. 343, 24 L. ed. 229.

Massachusetts. Carr v. Bank, 107 Mass. 45, 9 Am. Rep. 6.