The power of a bank to issue certificates of deposit is a part of the power to carry on a banking business. Therefore national banks have power to issue certificates of deposit payable either upon demand or upon time.1 Sometimes, however, the statute has forbidden the issuance by banks of such paper;2 yet even if the certificate itself be void as an illegal contract,3 the deposit will remain enforceable as a deposit.4 -Such certificates issued without consideration are, like other contracts without a consideration to support them, of no efficacy,5 except in the hands of a bona fide holder.6 This latter statement is true if the particular jurisdiction holds in accordance with the great weight of authority that the ordinary certificate of deposit of a banker is the promissory note of the bank or banker issuing it, payable upon demand.7 But certain courts have denied this obvious proposition.8 The certificates are therefore negotiable,9 and an indorser upon one assumes the

15 United States Bank v. Macal-ister, 9 Pa. 475.

16 Simmons Co. v. Bank of. Greenwood, 41 S. C. 177. This was a case where the check-holder sued, and is another of the astonishing decisions produced by this extraordinary rula The decision held that the balance of one account could not be applied upon another account without notice to the depositor. But the decision gives no idea of the real issue. As a matter of fact the account was insufficient including both accounts. The case went to the jury on the theory that the bank was estopped by its books. Yet the court charged exactly the other way. The whole case, when carefully examined, is incomprehensible.

17 In such a case the bank must respect the rights of the true owner or beneficiary, if it knows of the interest.

18 Union Mfg. Co. v. Rocky M. Bank, 2 Colo. 24a

19 Preston v. Canadian Bank, 23 Fed. R. 179. But this decision is hardly reconcilable with the Massachusetts case it cites. See Sec. 158, ante, note 2.

20 Owens v. Staff, 32 I11 App 653. If no rate is fixed the legal rate will govern. Loan Bank v. Miller, 39 S. C. 175.

21 This is within the general rula

22 Casey v. Carver, 42 IU 225; Union Bank v. Solee, 2 Strobh. 390.

23 Hubbard v. Charleston Co., 11 Met 124.

1 See notes 5 and 6, Sec. 125. ante.

2Davden v. Banks, 21 Ga. 297; Bank of Peru v. Farnsworth, 18 I11. 565. And see Hunt v. Divine, 37 111. 137, for a strict construction of such a statute.

3 Bank of Peru v. Farnsworth, supra; Bank v. Merrill, 2 Hill, 295; Leavitt v. Palmer, 3 N. Y. 19. Compare Curtis v. Leavitt, 17 Barb. 309. The case of Hargroves v. Chambers, 30 G a. 580, is contra.

4 Pelham v. Adams, 17 Barb. 384 And see Sec. 33, ante. Where the statute requires all contracts of the bank to be signed by both president and cashier, a certificate signed by either is good. Kilgore v. Bulkley, 14 Conn. 362; Barnes v. Ontario Bank, 19 N. Y. 152.

5 Murray v. Pauly, 56 Fed. R. 962. But see Armstrong v. Am. Ex. Nat. Bank, 133 U. S. 433. Compare Holland Trust Co. v. Waddell, 75 Hun, 104; Logan Nat. Bank v. Williamson, 2 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 118; Citizens'

Sav. Bank v. Blakeley, 42 Ohio St. 645.

6 Kirkwood v. First Nat Bank, 40 Neb. 484: First Nat. Bank v. Clark, 42 Hun, 16. It is good though known to be for accommodation. Holland Trust Co. v. Waddell, supra.

7 Miller v. Austen, 13 How. 218; Beardsley v. Webber, 104 Mich. 88; Brummagim v. Tallent, 29 Cal. 503; Kilgore v. Bulkley, 14 Conn. 362; Swift v. Whitney, 20 I1L 144; Cur-ran v. Witter, 68 Wis. 16; Mitchell v. Easton, 64 N. Y. 155; Citizens' Bank v. Brown, 45 Ohio St. 39, and many other cases.

8 Shute v. Pacific Nat. Bank, 136 Mass. 487; Loudon Sav. Soc. v. Hagerstown Bank, 36 Pa. 498; Lebanon Bank v. Mangan, 28 Pa. 452; O'Neill v. Bradford, 1 Pin. 390. The latter case is no longer authority.

9 Miller v. Austen, 13 How. 218; Birch v. Fisher, 51 Mich. 36; Lynch v. Goldsmith, 64 Ga. 42; Springfield same liability as the indorser of a promissory note.10 The certificate passes by indorsement and delivery,11 or by delivery though unindorsed.12 An assignment of the certificate transfers the whole sum represented by it.13 A certificate must be delivered up upon payment,14 unless it has been lost unindorsed.15 The certificate is payable where the bank is located,16 but one extraordinary case has lost sight of this obvious fact.17 Payment by the bank upon an unauthorized indorsement is not payment at all,18 even though the bank obtains the certificate. Yet it has been erroneously held that if the bank pay the certificate once it cannot be called upon after six years to pay it again, in spite of the fact that it did not get the certificate.19 This decision ignores the fact that the certificate is a promissory note and is entitled to no weight whatever.

Certificates of deposit are of two descriptions: those payable after a certain time and those payable upon demand. If a certificate is payable after a certain date it matures at that date, and becomes, so far as a transferee of the certificate after maturity is concerned, overdue paper, and is subject to defenses accordingly.20 A demand certificate transremains to be said that certifying a check does not create such a deposit.2 A deposit to pay a certain claim is revocable unless assented to or acted upon by the beneficiary,3 and such a deposit remains a special deposit, although mingled with the general funds of the bank;4 but where a corporation agreed to keep its general deposit up to a certain amount in order to protect certain loans, the deposit was general and not special.5 But a deposit has been held in one case to remain special, although upon its credit checks were drawn and paid.6 Money delivered to a bank for transmission,7 or paid to a bank for a note upon an order given for delivery of the note,8 or for any other special purpose,9 is a special deposit. But where the bank agreed to put a special amount in a separate package, but did not do so, no special deposit resulted ;10 although had the bank done so, a special deposit would have been created.11 Paper delivered to a bank for collection, as we have seen, remains a special deposit as to that bank and all others with notice, until it is collected and the proceeds become mingled with the bank's funds.12 The other cases of special deposit are where either money or securities or other valuables are delivered to a bank for safekeeping.13

Marine Co. v. Peck, 102 I11 265; and under a statute, Renfro v. Merchants' Bank, 83 Ala. 425. But contra where payable in current funds not negotiable under a statute. Lafayette Nat. Bank v. Ringel, 51 Ind. 393.

10 Cate v. Patterson, 25 Mich. 191.

11 See cases under notes 7 and 9, supra. Contra, cases under note 8, supra.

12 Shanklin v. Madison Co. Com'rs, 21 Ohio St. 575; Cassidy v. First Nat. Bank, 30 Minn. 86.

13 Springfield Marine Co. v. Peck, 102 I11. 265.

14 Fells Point Sav. Inst v. Werdon, 18 Md. 320. But Hunt v. Divine, 37 I11 137, permits a suit without demand, and an injunction forbidding a transfer was held to be good as against every one except a bona fide holder. Springfield Marine Co. v. Peck, 102 I11. 265. 15 See note 6 to Sec. 156, ante.

16 Sanbourn v. Smith, 44 Iowa, 152.

17 Renfro v. Merchants' Bank, 83 Ala. 425.

18 Honig v. Pacific Bank, 73 Cal. 464.

19 Gregg v. Union Co. Nat. Bank, 87 Ind. 238.

20 First Nat Bank v. Security Nat Bank, 34 Neb. 71. But the certificate does not mature for the purpose of presenting it and demanding payment at the place where payable. It was upon this theory ferred two years after its date is said to be subject to a set-off.21 The certificate is governed by the general rule that the figures in the margin are governed by the amount stated in the body of the certificate.22 Where a certificate was made payable to the order of the depositor or his wife by name, the bank was held liable for paying after his death upon the indorsement of the widow.23 The certificate continues to draw interest at the same rate after maturity as before,24 whether the certificate so states or not.25 The damages for the detention of a non-interest bearing certificate are interest at the legal rate.26 If a suit is pending upon a certificate and a new certificate is accepted instead of the one on which suit is pending, the cause of action is destroyed.27 It is sometimes difficult to decide whether a document is a certificate of deposit or not,28 as the cases show.