The words "specialdeposit" are used in the cases in two senses - one, as a deposit for safekeeping; the other, as a deposit for a particular purpose. The latter kind of a deposit has been already noticed.1 It that banks tried to establish the rule that an unpresented certificate ceased to draw interest after maturity. Being payable at the bank, the need of demand there of payment could only be met by presenting the certificate at the bank for payment. It must be admitted that there is no logical escape from the claim made by the banks, but the decisions are all otherwise.

21 Tripp v. Curteuius, 36 Mich. 494. This decision would be correct if an assignee or indorsee were not bona fide; but the case in the last note is not sound, and National Bank v. Washington Co. Bank, 5 Hun, 605, is contra. It is difficult to see how the bank gets an equity by paying to the wrong person.

The rule' as to certified checks is different from the rule stated in Gregg v. Union Co. Nat. Bank, supra.

22 Payne v. Clark, 19 Mo. 152.

23 See Smiley v. Fry, 100 N. Y. 262; First Nat. Bank v. Clark, 134 N. Y. 368; First Nat. Bank v. Greenville Nat. Bank, 84 Tex. 40.

24 Second Nat. Bank v. Wrightson, 63 Md. 81.

25Cordell v. First Nat. Bank, 64 Mo. 600.

26 Payne v. Clark, 23 Mo. 259.

27Sleppy v. Bank of Commerce, 17 Fed. R. 712.

28 Manuel v. Mississippi R. Co., 2 Pa. 198.

1 See Sec. 136, ante, and notes 14 and 15; Moreland v. Brown, 86 Fed. R. 257; Montague v. Pacifio Bank, 81

Fed. R. 602: Am. Ex. Nat. Bank v. Loretta Mfg. Co., 165 I11 103.

2 People v. St Nicholas Bank, 28 N. Y. Supp. 407.

3 See Sec. 136, ante, and notes 14 and 15; Star Cutter Co. v. Smith, 37 111. A pp. 212; Bank of Leroy v. Harding, 1 Kan. App. 389.

4 Kimmel v. Dickson, 5 S. D. 221; Star Cutter Co. v. Smith, 37 111. App. 212. This matter becomes of importance in case the bank is robbed or in the case of insolvency. See Sec. 342, post But the depositor in a case of robbery ought to ratify the mingling and claim a general deposit.

5 State Building Ass'n v. Merch. Sav. Bank, 36 S. W. R. 967.

6 Chesapeake Bank v. Swain, 29 Md. 483, an extreme case.

7 Stoller v. Coates, 88 Mo. 514

8 Massey v. Fisher, 62 Fed. R. 958; Clots v. Dickson, 5 Alb. Law J. 286; Peak v. Ellicott, 30 Kan. 156; Elli-cott v. Barnes, 31 Kan. 170; Ryan v. Phillips, 3 Kan. App. 704.

9 Harrison v. Smith, 83 Ma 210. But see Edson v. Angell, 58 Mich. 336 (wrong).

10Bayor v. Shaffner, 51 I11 App 180.

11 In re Comm. Bank, 2 Ohio Dec. 304

12 See Sec. 133, ante.

13 Pattison v. Syracuse Nat Bank, 80 N. Y. 82. See Kupfer v. Bank of Galena, 34 I11 328. Though a derity was credited to the depositor as cash, the deposit was general;10 and the invariable rule is that whether securities are deposited for collection or for credit, as soon as they are collected and go into the general funds of the bank the deposit becomes a general one, creating the relation of debtor and creditor.11 The proof to identify the special deposit is often necessarily circumstantial.12