Trust funds are those which are credited in the bank to some person in a trust capacity, such as agent or trustee, or funds that are in fact either actually or beneficially the property of some one else than the ostensible depositor. Where the bank has no notice or knowledge of the trust, it may pay out or give credit upon the apparent authority.1 Where it has notice of the trust, it cannot permit the funds to be taken out of the bank in known violation of the trust, or by a single trustee where there are two,2 nor can the bank itself apply the funds in any way which it knows is a violation of the trust. But if the agent has authority to draw out the money, the bank is not required to look after a proper application of it,3 and in such a case the bank takes the risk as to the agent's authority.4 In the case of trust funds the bank assumes no responsibility, unless in some way it is put upon notice of a violation of the trust.5 By accepting an account for partnership purposes, the form of the check becomes immaterial Coote v. United States Bank, supra, in the name of a trustee, it does not undertake any supervision of the trust.6 But if the bank has reason to think or has notice that the funds do not belong to the person in whose name they are standing, it is sometimes placed in a position of much difficulty. Instances sometimes occur as between husband and wife. If the husband deposits money for both himself and his wife to draw upon, the pass-book being issued to the husband, the bank may safely assume the deposit to belong to the husband.7 But if the deposit is made in the name of the wife as her money, the bank cannot permit the husband to check it out on any statements of his.8 Express authority or ratification by the wife must appear.9 Tet, if the money really belonged to the husband and was not a gift to the wife,10 the bank would be protected in paying to the order of the true owner as in all other cases.11 Even though the bank is informed that the money belongs to the husband when it is deposited in the husband's name, the wife can reclaim it if the bank has suffered no injury, but merely seeks to apply it on the husband's debt.12 The same is true of all other cases where funds are in the bank as the property of one person, but in fact belong to another. So long as the bank has not paid them out without notice or lent credit or suffered a detriment, but itself seeks to hold the funds as belonging to the ostensible depositor, it will not be permitted to do so.13 "Where money is deposited to levy of a writ of attachment properly made, or a garnishment under a writ of attachment, or an execution upon a Iowa, 752; Union Stock Yards Nat. Bank v. Moore, 79 Fed. R. 705; Anderson v. Market Nat. Bank, 1 N. Y. Supp. 136. Contra, Boettcher v. Colorado Nat. Bank, 15 Colo. 16, which is wrongly decided because the bank lost nothing; Wood v. Boylston Nat Bank, 129 Mass. 358, which is rightly decided because the bank lost its debt. See further, Burtnett v. First Nat. Bank, 38 Mich. 430; Johnson v. Payne Bank, 56 Mo. App. 257. But this rule does not apply to a trust completed.

17 Coote v. United States Bank, 3 Cranch, C. C. 50.

18Lindsey v. Lambert Ass'n, 4 Fed. R 48

1 Ensman v. Delaware Co. Nat. Bank, 37 Wkly. Notes Cas. 518; In re Plankinton Bank, 87 Wis. 378; Long v. Emsley, 57 Iowa, 11; Smith v. Des Moines Nat. Bank, 78 N. W. R 238. But it is held that where the bank claims the fund for itself, it is accountable to the principal regardless of notice. Cady v. South Omaha Nat Bank, 49 Neb. 125. This is the true rule unless the bank by lending credit has become a bona fide holder. See note 13, infra. 2 Swift v. Williams, 68 Md. 236;

Commercial Bank v. Jones, 18 Tex. 811. See also Hatch v. Fourth Nat. Bank, 147 N. Y. 184; United States v. National Bank, 73 Fed. R 379; Bank of Greensboro v. Clapp, 76 N. C. 482. It makes no difference that the funds of the principal are mingled with the agent's funds. Van Alen v. American Nat. Bank, 52 N. Y. 1; but contra, Beatty v. McLeod, 11 La. Ann. 76.

3 Randolph v. Allen, 73 Fed. R 23, 41 U. S. App. 117.

4 Honig v. Pacific Bank, 73 Cal. 464; Robinson v. Chem. Nat. Bank, 86 N. Y. 404

5Loring v. Brodie, 134 Mass. 453. But if administrator dies with a deposit, bank cannot pay to administrator de bonis -non of intestate. Slaymaker v. Farmers' Bank, 103

Pa. 616. If the bank permits the trust fund to be credited to the trustee personally, it is accountable to the principal, for it assists in the breach of trust. Farmers' Loan Co. v. Fidelity Trust Co., 86 Fed. R. 541. 6 Evans v. Evans, 82 Iowa, 492; Eyrich v. Capital State Bank, 67 Miss. 60. The difficulty always lies in determining what puts the bank upon inquiry as to a misappropriation. As to agent, see Union Stock Yards Bank v. Gillespie, 137 U. S. 411; National Bank v. Insurance Co., 104 U. S. 54. As to trustee, see Howard v. Deposit Bank, 80 Ky.

496; Hammel v. First Nat. Bank, 2 Colo. App. 571; Scranton v. Farmers' Bank, 24 N. Y. 424; Gate City Ass'n v. National Bank, 126 Mo. 82.

7 Brown v. Brown, 23 Barb. 565.

8 Bates v. First Nat. Bank, 23 Hun, 420, 89 N. Y. 286.

9 Case last cited pay to a certain person, if the person is not interested in the deposit and has not ordered or procured or agreed that the deposit should be so made,11 the deposit may be withdrawn at any time before notice to the person for whose use the deposit is made or a promise to pay that person.15 In case of corporate funds deposited in the bank,16 the bank cannot transfer them to the individual credit of an officer;17 but it was said in one case that the check of the corporation transferred by the officer to himself would not be notice of a misappropriation by the officer.18 But government deposits known to the bank to be government deposits cannot be permitted by the bank to be drawn out on private check.19 Some further cases will be noticed under the section in regard to a bank's application of deposits to pay off its own claims.20 There are other cases where the bank actually acts as a trustee.21

10 People v. State Bank, 36 Hun, 607, 102 N. Y. 740.

11 Kerr v. People's Bank, 158 Pa. 305. But see German Bank v. Him-stedt, 42 Ark. 62.

12 Citizens' Bank v. Harrison, 127 Ind. 128.

13 Armstrong v. National Bank, 53-