Wherever the fact of a deposit appears, the burden is on the bank to prove payment;1 although, if the depositor retains his passbook for a time without objection, the burden is upon him to show a mistake.2 So likewise, although the burden is upon the bank to show that the payee's indorsement upon a check is genuine,3 yet the retention of the check by the depositor for a long time without objection throws the burden of proof upon him.4 Where it is shown that notice was given to the bank by the depositor not to pay a check, the burden is upon the bank to show that the check was paid before the notice was received;5 and after notice given by the person claiming to be the true owner, where the deposit indicates the ownership, has been shown to the bank, the burden is upon the bank to show payment to the true owner.6 Where funds are mingled in one deposit, the presumption is that the depositor's checks were drawn against and paid from the funds belonging to the person drawing the check.7 Where the administrator of a decedent makes claim to a deposit upon the fact of a pass-book being found among the decedent's effects, if the name upon the pass-book and the description of the depositor do not correspond to that of the deceased, the burden is upon the administrator to show the decedent's ownership.8 The receipt of the cashier is presumptive proof of a deposit,9 and where the amount in the body of the certificate differs from the amount stated in the margin, the presumption is that the body of the certificate is correct.10 But a certificate of deposit is said to be a receipt and explainable by parol evidence,11 but the certificate can be overcome only by clear and satisfactory proof.12 It is presumptively correct,13 as are the books of the bank even as against the stockholders in favor of the depositor.14

13 Adams v. Orange Co. Bank, 17 Wend. 514. 14 Robinson v. Floyd, 159 Pa. 165. 15Viets v. Union Nat. Bank, 101 N. Y. 563.

1 De Land v. Dixon Nat. Bank, 111 III 323.

2 Anderson v. Leverich, 70 Iowa, 741.

3 Morgan v. State Bank, 1 Duer, 434; August v. Fourth Nat Bank, 1 N. Y. Supp. 139.

4 See last case.

5 Albers v. Commercial Bank, 85 Mo. 173.

6 Arnold v. Macungie Sav. Bank, 71 Pa. 287.

7 Hall v.Otis, 77 Me. 122.

8 People v. Third Ave. Sav. Bank, 98 N. Y. 661. 9 state Bank v. Kain, I11. 45.

10 Payne v. Clark, 19 Ma 152.

11 Hotchkiss v. Mosher, 48 N. Y. 478. This case is not correct on this point. All the authority is that a certificate of deposit is the bank's promissory note.

12 First Nat. Bank v. Myers, 83 I1L 507.

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

14 Davis v. Naper, 91 I11.. 44. They are admissions, and hence need not be the books of original entry. The books of a savings bank are admissible to show the fact of deposit and ownership. McKavlin v. Bress-lin, 8 Gray, 177. See also Sec. 132, ante.