A

14 Mayer v. Chattanooga Bank, 51 Ga. 325.

15 Brockmeyer v. Washington Nat. Bank, 40 Kan. 744; Trustees v. Pace, 15 Ga. 486; Mayer v. Chattanooga Nat. Bank, 51 Ga. 325, citing four English cases.

16 Lindsey v. Lambert Ass'n, 4 Fed. R. 48.

17 Cushman v. Illinois Starch Co., 79 I11. 281.

18 Gate City Ass'n v. National Bank, 126 Mo. 82. This case is wrong, because the fact would be notice, unless the check was of such a character that the bank could assume that the check was transferred properly by the officer to himself. The court in its decision does not see the point at all, nor does the annotator of 47 Am. St R. 63a deposit, creates a lien upon the property of .the debtor in the writ or the execution, which is always considered to be a legal interest. The property sought to be reached may be either a legal interest in the chose in action, the deposit, or it may be merely an equitable one. Thus, if the deposit stands in the debtor's name, the debtor has a legal interest. If it stands in the name of some other person, but really belongs to the debtor, the latter has an equitable interest. Legal interests can generally be reached in the method fixed by the statutes of the particular jurisdiction. Sometimes equitable interests may be reached, also, by legal process. Thus in Massachusetts a fund in the name of a guardian may be reached by trustee process against the beneficiary,1 and in New York a deposit in the name of another is reached by an attachment against the true owner.2 Whenever equitable interests cannot be reached by process at law they can generally be reached by a creditor's bill.3 The bank is always a party to such an action, and the suit amounts to a lis pendens, therefore, as against the bank; but generally an injunction should be issued.4 In Pennsylvania that extraordinary thing called a scire facias bill of discovery seems to create a lien upon subsequent deposits.5 But assuming that the proceeding, whatever it may be, is sufficient to notify the bank, the bank must respect the lien, or the claim amounting to a lien, from the time it has notice thereof.6 The garnishment only applies to the amount actually due at the time,7 whatever be the condition of the account as shown by the books of the bank, for payments made before notice, although not entered upon the books, are good.8 The bank's prior lien is protected,9 and the bank, if it has notice of the claim of some one else than the depositor, cannot pay the deposit to the depositor's garnishing creditor.10 But it seems to be held that money deposited to pay a check or other claim can be garnished as the property of the depositor until paid or promised to be paid to the third party called the "usee.".1l The true owner, whether indicated in the deposit12 or not,13 is entitled to the deposit as against the depositor's garnishing creditor. But even if the fund is deposited to the credit of an agent, if no third party claims the fund the garnishment is good.11 The trustee must protect the rights of his beneficiary as well as his own.15 If the bank is adjudged to pay over the amount after notice to the beneficiary, the payment will be a discharge as to the amount paid.16 The bank must exercise the greatest care in regard to the garnishment, because a misnomer, even as to the middle initial, would exonerate the bank for not regarding the garnishment, if it had no other knowledge on the subject.17 The amendment of the writ would not cover inter-venient payments.18 This matter is of special importance where the holder of a check can sue the bank after presentation, while funds to meet the check were in the bank. The fact that checks are outstanding is no defense against the garnishment of the deposit,19 unless the checks have been certified or accepted,20 except in those states which permit the holder to sue the bank, and in that case checks outstanding would be a defense only after the checks had been presented.21

19 United States v. National Bank, 73 Fed. R. 379.

20See Sec. 140, post

21 See Sec. 341, post Under such circumstances it is chargeable with all the duties and liabilities of a trustee.

1 Simmons v. Almy, 100 Mass. 239.

2 Gibson v. National Park Bank, 98 N. Y. 87. Contra in Kansas (Scott v. Smith, 2 Kan. 438) as to a mere levy of execution and delivery of the deposit by the bank. But see, as to New York rule, Bills v. Park Bank, 89 N. Y. 343; O'Connor v. Mechanics' Bank, 54 Hun, 272, reversed in 124 N. Y. 324; and Sec. 134, ante, note 23.

3 Illinois is an exception if the moneys are trust moneys for a beneficiary, where the trust has been created by some one other than the beneficiary. Potter v. Couch, 141

U. S. 296; Rev. Stat, of 111., ch. 22, sec. 49.

4 Payments made in violation of an injunction are not good as to the bank. Springfield Marine Co. v. Peck, 102 111. 265. But a state court cannot issue an injunction against a national bank until final judgment, while a United States court can. See Sec. 352, post.

5 Schram v. Cartwright, 16 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 618. The early error of Pennsylvania in refusing its courts chancery jurisdiction has produced some-singular results.

6 Merchants' Ban k v. Meyer, 56 Ark. 499; Exchange Bank v. Gulick, 24 Kan. 359. All the cases cited to this section recognize the principle. But it is held that an assignment of the deposit before garnishment gives the assignee the better title. See Sec. 362, post, notes 8-10.

7 Johnson v. Brant, 38 Kan. 754.

8 Foster v. Swasey, 3 Woodb. & M.364.

9 Rice v. Third Nat. Bank, 97 Mich. 414.

10 Adams Co. v. National Bank, 9 N. Y. Supp. 75.

11 Mayer v. Chattahoochie Nat. Bank, 51 Ga. 325.

12 Cotton Mills Co. v. Cooper, 93 Iowa, 654. The deposit was to the credit of a person as agent.

13Skilman v. Miller, 7 Bush, 428.

14 Proctor v. Greene, 14 R I. 42.

15 Randall v. Way, 111 Mass. 508.

16 Randall v. Way, 111 Mass. 506; Leonard v. New Bedford Bank, 116 Mass. 210; Woods v. Milford Sav. Inst., 58 N. H. 184. But if the bank was negligent in defending the ao-tion, or if it was guilty of collusion, it will not be a defense. See Sec. 363, post, note 1, as to savings banks.