The rule of the clearinghouse as to a clearing agent generally requires notice to be given before the agent can withdraw, and therefore the clearing agent must keep on receiving and paying the paper on the bank for which it acts until the expiration of that period, although the bank for which it is acting has become insolvent. The agent could hold the securities deposited with it by the bank whose paper it paid.1 This decision, in effect, permits a clearing-house rule to annul the statute against preferences, because it allows claims against the bank to be paid after insolvency, and the bank's assets to be impressed with a lien therefor, excused by the court on the ground that the lien already existed. The decision is a complete and signal judicial error, for the lien existed only as to payments up to that time made, and it cannot be reconciled with the spirit of the opinion in Yardley v. Philler 167 U. S. 344. In another case it was said that a clearing agent's agreement to pay checks on another bank did not impose upon it the same liabilities that were imposed upon the bank on which the paper was drawn.2 Bat the latter bank would be bound by the act of its clearing agent in waiving the rule of the clearing-house as to a revocation of credit.3 The agent is not negligent for failure to anticipate that a bank suspended on one day would resume business on the next day.4

9 See Sec. 154, ante. 10 See Sec. 154, ante.

11 See Sec. 158, ante.

12 See Sec. 155, ante.

13Stuyvesant Bank v. National Mechanics' Bank, 7 Lans. 197.

1 O'Brien v. Grant, 146N. Y. 163. Compare Nat. Security Bank v_ Butler, 129 U. S 223