The usual action for a deposit will be the common-law action of assumpsit or debt.1 The book is, of course, evidence to show the deposit, and it may be offered solely for that purpose.2 A suit is not prematurely brought where the banker reserves sixty days' notice of a drawing of the deposit, where he does not demand it.3 Where conflicting claims are made upon the bank it may have an interpleader upon payment into court.4 But the application must show a prima facie case of conflicting claims, and the facts stated must be sufficient to indicate adverse titles.5 Under the statute the facts showing the nature of the claim made must be stated.6 And it was held that the bank could not interplead a claimant with title superior to the depositor, where the claimant does not proceed by law to enforce his rights.7 An interpleader in the nature of a summons was also refused as against the administrator of the assignor where the assignee was suing in his name, although the statute permitted any other person than plaintiff to be summoned.8 A substitution of parties was refused where the bank held under a personal contract as agent or bailee.9

30 Underbill v. Poughkeepsie Sav. Bank, 32 Hun, 432.

31 Abramowitz v. Citizens' Sav. Bank, 40 N. Y. Supp. 385.

32Weld v. Eliot Sav. Bank, 158 Mass. 339.

33 McDermott v.'Miners' Sav. Bank, 100 Pa. 285.

1 Makin v. Inst, for Sav., 19 Me. 128. The beneficiary of a trust must, of course, seek his remedy in equity, except where a right to sue at law in exceptional cases exists in jurisdictions which have been hampered by the want of an equitable system of remedies.

2 Brown v. Abingdon Sav. Inst, 119 Mass. 69. The matter may be of advantage in not compelling the plaintiff to offer the rules in evidence in connection with the fact of deposit.

3 Arnold v. Seifert, 76 111. App. 666. 4Faivre v. Union Sav. Inst., 13

N. Y. Supp. 423.

5 Mars v. Albany Sav. Bank, 69 Hun, 398; Mahro v. Greenwich Sav. Bank, 38 N. Y. Supp. 126.

6 Mahro v. Greenwich Sav. Bank, 38 N. Y. Supp. 126.