18 Since it is not a suit for negligence the answer ought to be no.

19 Am. Ex. Nat. Bank v. Gregg, 138 I11. 596, reversing 37 III App. 425.

20 Kavanagh v. Farmers' Bank, 59 Mo. App. 540.

21 Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Imp. & Trad. Nat. Bank, 119 N. Y. 195; Viets v. Union Nat. Bank, 101 N. Y. 563.

1 First Nat. Bank v. McMichael, 106 Pa. 460.

2 See the case next cited.

3 First Nat. Bank v. McMichael, 106 Pa. 460. Contra, Colo. Nat. Bank v. Boettcher, 5 Colo. 185. Compare Overman v. Bank, 31 N. J. Law, 583.

4 Henrietta Nat. Bank v. State Nat. Bank, 80 Tex. 648; Espy v. Bank, 18 Wall. 605. Contra, Myei-s v. Union Nat. Bank, 27 III. App. 254. And see note 13, Sec. 150, post.

5 Barnet v. Smith, 30 N. H. 256. Contra, Kahn v. Walton, 46 Ohio St, 195.

5 State v. Morton, 27 Vt. 310.

6 See also, as to oral acceptance, Farmers' Bank v. Dunbar, 32 Neb. 487, and Morse v. Mass. Nat. Bank, 1 Holmes, 209. But if the statute requires a writing, the rule is different. Duncan v. Berlin, 60 N. Y. 151; State Bank v. Lindeman, 161 Pa. 199.

7 First Nat. Bank v. Whitman, 94 U. S. 343; Grocer Co. v. Farmers' Bank, 71 Mo. App. 132. Contra, Peck v. People's Nat. Bank, 88 Tenn. 380; Millard v. National Bank, 3 McArthur, 54; Seventh Nat. Bank v. Cook, 73 Pa. 483; Dodge v. Nat. Ex. Bank, 20 Ohio St 234; Commercial Nat. Bank v. Lincoln Fuel Co., 67 111. App. 166.

8 National Bank v. Cook, 73 Pa. 483, and last two cases cited. But in Pennsylvania this credit may be withdrawn in accordance with a clearing-house rula German Nat. Bank v. Farmers' Dep. Bank, 118 Pa. 294. The rule of the Supreme Court of the United States (First Nat. Bank v. Whitman, 94 U. S. 343) is the right one, because there is no novation. But Saylor v. Bush-ong, 100 Pa. 23, where the depositor directed, and the bank kept enough, to pay the check, is correct, because there was a novation. Commercial Nat. Bank v. Lincoln Fuel Co., 67 I11. App. 166, is wrong.

9 Morse v. Masa Nat. Bank, 1 Holmes, 209.

10 Nelson v. First Nat. Bank, 48 111.

36. The court says it is binding as a contract; but what right had the bank to go into the business of buying corn? The promise might be turned into a representation as to credit, and thus be an estoppel. But the representation was not made to the check-holder, so how could he sue upon it? One case holds that he could sue. Chanute Nat. Bank v. Crowell, 6 Kan. App. 533. See Springfield Marine Bank v. Mitchell, 48 I11. App. 486, a unique decision.

11 French v. Irwin, 4 Baxt. 401; First Nat. Bank v. Leach, 52 N. Y. 350; Born v. First Nat. Bank, 123 Ind. 78.

12 Farmers' Bank v. Butchers' Bank, 69 N. Y. 125; Lynch v. First Nat. Bank, 107 N. Y. 179; Hill v. National Trust Co., 108 Pa. 1.

13 Lunt v. Bank of North America, 49 Barb. 221; Commercial Nat. Bank v. First Nat. Bank, 118 N. C. 783; Bank of Republic v. Millard, 10 WalL 152; Ames v. York Nat Bank, 103 Mass. 326.

14 Bank of Republic v. Millard, 10 Wall. 152; First Nat. Bank v. Whitman, 94 U. S. 343; Florence Mining a deposit is not an equitable assignment of any portion thereof,15 nor an assignment of the whole thereof, where it is for the full amount of the deposit.16 This is the necessary result of the rule as to checks that is held throughout the commercial world; but if a check is drawn upon a particular fund, and so understood as between the parties, it is operative upon that fund pro tanto,11 but a check or draft drawn generally is not so.18