Deposit

A naked bailment of goods to be kept for the depositor without reward, and to be returned when he shall require it.

Jones, Bailm. 36, 117; Bellows Falls Bank v. Bank, 40 Vt. 380.

A bailment of goods to be kept by the bailee without reward, and delivered according to the object or purpose of the original trust. Story, Bailm. § 41; Richardson v. Futrell, 42 Miss. 544 A contract by which one of the contractin- parties gives a thing to another to who is to do so gratuitously and obliges himself to return it when lie shall be requested.

See 3 L. R. P. C. C. 101.

An irregular deposit arises where one deposits money with another for safekeeping, in cases where the latter is to return, nol the specific money deposited, but an equal sum. A (iitasi deposit arises where one i lawfully into possession of the goods of another by finding. A depositary is bound to take only ordinary care of the deposit, which will of course vary with the character of the goods to be kept, and other circumstances; Edw. Bailm. 43. See Vickroy v. Skelley, 14 S. & R. (Pa.):;-:,; Foster v. Bank, 17 Mass. 479, 9 Am. Dec. 168; Tracy v. Wood, 3 Mas. 132, led. Cas. No. 14,130; 1 B. & Aid. 50. While gross negligence on the part of a gratuitous bailee is not fraud, it is in effect the same thing; First Nat. Bank v. Graham, 100 L. S. 699, 25 L. Ed. 750. He has, in general, no right to use the thing deposited; Bac. Abr. Bailment, D; unless in cases where permission has been given or may from the nature of the case be implied; Story, Bailm. § 90; Jones, Bailm. 80, 81. He is bound to return the deposit in individuo, and in the same state in which he received it: if it is lost, or injured, or spoiled, by his fraud or gross negligence, he is responsible to the extent of the loss or injury; Jones, Bailm. 3G, 40, 120; Foster v. Bank, 17 Mass. 479, 9 Am. Dec. 108; Stanton v. Bell, 9 N. C. 145, 11 Am. Dec. 711; 1 Dine, Abr. c. 17, arts. 1 and 2; Hubbell v. Blandy, 87 Mich. 209, 40 N. W. 502, 24 Am. St. Rep. 154. He is also bound to restore, not only the thin- deposited, but any increase or profits which may have accrued from it; if an animal deposited bear young, the latter are to be delivered to the owner; story, Bailm. § 99. In the case of irregular deposits, as those with a bank, the relation of the bank to its customer is that of debtor and creditor, and does not partake at all of a fiduciary character. It ceases alto-ether to be the money of the depositor, and becomes the money of the bank. It is his to do what he pleases with it, and there is no trust created; Edw. Bailm. 41, 45; Commercial Bank of Albany v. Hughes. 17 Wend. (X. Y.I 91; 1 Mer. 568; American Exchange Nat. Bank v. Gregg, 138 ill. 596, 28 N. 1. 171; Collins v. State, 33 i ith. -'14; Central Nat Bank v. Ins. (Jo., 101 r. E 26 L. Ed. 693. See J -7 N. J. Eq. IS. In Law's I Mate, 114 I Atl. 831, 14 L, R, A. i03, it was held to be "a temporary disposition of money for keeping," not creating the relation of u and creditor; nor is it a loan; id.; Elliott v. state Bank, 128 la. 275 W. 777, l 1.. P. A. (N. S.) II-':". Ill Am. St. Rep. 1'.'-. If the jury believe from the evidence that the parties intended that a bank should Oi ceive a check as cash, hut only as nn • for collection, then title to the check not vest in the bank at the time of the deposit; Fayette Nat. Bank v. Sun 7a. 689, 54 S. E. 862, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 694. Where a commission merchant deposits his principal's money in his own account in bank, it cannot be applied to the payment of the former's debt to the bank; Boyle v. Bank, 125 Wis. 498, 103 N. W. 111':;. 104 N. W. 917, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1110, 110 Am. St Pep. 844, citing Union stock Yards Nat Bank v. Gillespie, 137 U. S. 411, 11 Sup. Ct US, 34 L. Ed 724. As to deposits in savings banks, etc., for another, see Donatio Mortis Cai See Check; Indorsement; National Bank. The legal remedy is a suit at law for debt: the balance cannot be reached by a bill in equity; 2 H. L. Cas. 39; except in some cases of insolvency, when a fund can be followed: Voight v. Lewis, 11 Phila. (Pa.) 511. Fed. Cas. No. 16,989. See infra. A bank is not liable for interest unless expressly contracted for; and the deposil is subject to the statute of limitations; 2 II. I. Mc Loghlin v. Bank. 139 N. Y. 514, 34 N. K. 1095. Otherwise, in the case of a certificate of deposit payable on demand; Hartman's Appeal. 107 Pa. 333. The general rule that the title passes upon the deposit does not apply when the E of the deposit is a sight draft and the bank at the time of the acceptance was insolvent and its officers knew it to be so; St. Louis &