Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 3).pdf/73

 views are supported by what we regard as the line of authorities most consonant with sound principle. Cavin v. Gleason, (N. Y. App.) 11 N. E." Rep. 504; Appeal of Hopkin’s Ex’r., (Pa. Sup.) 9 Atl. Rep. 867; Edson v. Angell, (Mich.) 25 N. W. Rep. 307; Bank v. Armstrong, 39 Fed. Rep. 684; Bank v. Dowd, 38 Fed. Rep. 172; 2 Story, Eq. Jur. §§ 1258, 1259; 2 Pom. Eq. Jur. § § 1051, 1058; Bank v. Gets, (Ill. Sup.) 27 N. E. Rep 907; Englar v. Offutt, 16 Atl. Rep. 497; 70 Md. 78. The decision in Bank v. Peters, (N. Y. App.) 25 N. E. Rep. 319; is not in conflict with the case in 11 N. E. Rep. 504. It belongs to the class of cases of which Knatchbull y. Hallett, is one, where the money has gone into a special fund. The drawers of a draft had deposited it for collection with a bank, which forwarded it to another bank, by which latter bank the collection was made, but no remittance was made before a receiver in insolvency of the former bank was appointed. It was held that the drawer of the draft could recover the money from the collecting bank. It was not a case where the money had been received by the insolvent bank, and mingled with its general funds. The insolvent bank had not received the money at all. The solvent bank had received it, and still was indebted for it to some one. The court very properly held that it was indebted for it to the true owners of the draft, the forwarding bank never having had any title to the draft, but having received it merely for collection.

The judgment of the District Court is reversed. All concur.

(53 N. W. Rep. 175.)