.18 mannmr. nmronrmu.
ceiving teller, to be credited to his account in the usual course of busi-
ness. The deposit was entered in the rplaintiifs pass—book, and the
book was returned to him; but the teller laid the money aside, together
with the deposit ticket, according to his custom when he was busy, so
that the money did not become mingled with the funds of the bank.
Before any entry was-made to plaintiffs credit on ·the books, the bank
closed its doors, and, by direction of the bank officers, the plaintiti"s de-
posit was kept separate from other moneys, and in that shape passed into
the custody of the receiver. ,It isconceded that,. when the deposit was
made, neither the plaintiff nor the receiving teller knew that the bank
, was about to suspend. · - I   , Q , ·_ P
On the agreed case, there is only one ground upon which the plaintiH`
can recover,·and that is, that the receptionlof the money under the cir-
cumstances stated was such a fraud on the part of the bank as entitles
thedepositor to reclaim the money in an action of replevin. Whilst it
is the rule that a deposit made with a bank of currentfunds creates the
relation of debtor and creditor as soon as the funds pass into the custody
of the bank, and even before any entry h-as beenrmade in the books of
the bank,. as distinguished from the depositor’s pass-books, yet there are
several welkconsidered cases that hold that if a bank receives money from
a depositorlon-the eve of suspension, knowing that it is insolvent, and
about to suspendhsuch conduct is fraudu1ent,.and entitles the depositor
to` reclaim the deposit if the particular money can be identi{ied,,a.nd has
not become mingled with the funds of the bank. I refer to the follow-
ing cases: Oragie v. Hadley, 99 `N. Y. *131,1 N. E. Rep. 537; Sadler v.
Belcher, 2 Moody & R. 489; Ohayfee v. Fort, 2 Lans. 86. Counsel for the
receiver lay stress on the.fact;that the receiving teller did not know that
the bank was about to suspend when he received the deposit, but I re-
gard that fact- asimmateriai, if theofiicers of the bank knew that it was
about to suspend business. The teller was merely a subordinate agent
ofthe bank, andthe corporation cannot shelter itself behindhis igno-
Qrance, if the-managing ofiicers of the corporation were acquainted with
itscondition when the deposit was made. Inasmuch as the agreed state-
nient admits that the bank was insolvent, and that it closed its doors
only a few»m0mGnts` after the money was received, it must be taken as a
conceded factthat the directors or managing officers did know that the
concern was insolvent, and was about to suspend operations, when the
deposit was made. The subsequent action of the oflicers of the bank in
` directing the receiving teller to keep the deposit separate, so that it could
· be identified, is an admission of such knowledge on their part, and like-
wise an admission that the depositor had the right at his election, to re-
claim the money. The receipt ofthe money from the depositor under
such circumstances, especially if the bank officials had made an effort to
hold the money, and treat the depositor as an ordinarycreditor, would
have operatedas a fraud on the depositor, and wouldentitle him to re-
claim the money deposited, if susceptible of identification. There is no
possible distinction in principle between receiving money on the eve
of suspension,.knowing that a suspension is about to take place, and the