after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court. '
We agree with the Circuit Judge that the relation created between the banks as to uncollected рaper was that of principal and agent, and that the mere fact that'a subagent of the Fidelity Bank had collected the money due on such paper, was nоt a mingling of those collections with the general funds of the Fidelity, and did not operate to relieve them from the trust obligation created by the agency of the Fidelity, or create any difficulty in specifically tracing them. As to such paper; the transaction may be described thus: The plaintiff hahded.it to the Fidelity, the Fidelity handed it to a subagent,. thе subagent collected it and held the specific money in hand to be delivered to the Fidelity; then the failure of the Fidelity came, and the specific money was handed to its receiver. That money never became a part of the general funds of the Fidelity ; it w-as not applied by the subagent. in reducing the indebtedness of the Fidelity to it, but it was hеld as a sum collected, to be paid over to the Fidelity, or to whomsoever .might be entitled, to it.' The Fidelity received the paper as agent, and the endorsement “ for .collection ” was notice that its possession was that of agent and not of owner. ' In
Sweeny
v.
Easter,
We also agree with the Circuit Court, in its conclusions as to those moneys collected by subagents to whom the Fidelity was in debt, and which collections had been credited by the subagents upon thе debts of the Fidelity to them, before its insolvency was disclosed, for there the moneys had practically passed into the hands of the Fidelity, the collection had been fully completed. It was not a mere matter of book-keeping between the Fidelity and its Agents; it was the same as though.the money had actually reached the vaults of the Fidelity. It was a completed transaction between it and its subagents, and nothing was left but the settlement between the Fidelity and the principal — the plaintiff. The conclusions of the Circuit Court were based upon the idea that these collections could not be traced, because they had passed into the general fund of the bank. We think, hоwever, a more satisfactory reason is found in the fact that, by the terms of the arrangement between the plaintiff and the Fidelity, the relation of debtor and creditor wras created when the collections were fully made. The agreement was to collect at par, and remit the first, eleventh, and twenty-first of each month. Collections intermediate those dates were, by the custom of banks and the evident understanding of the parties, to be mingled with the general funds of the Fidelity, and used in its business. The fact that the intervаls between the dates for remitting were brief is immaterial. ■ The principle is the same as if the Fidelity was to remit only once every six months. It was the contemplation of the рarties, and must be so adjudged according to the ordinary custom of banking, that these collections were not to be placed on special deposit and held Until the day for remitting. The very fact that col
*59
lections were to be made .at par shows that the compensation for the trouble and expense of collection was understood to be the temporary deposit of the funds thus collected, and the temporary use thereof by the Fidelity. The case of
Marine Bank
v.
Fulton
Bank,
That reasoning is applicable here. Bearing in mind the *60 custom of banks, it cannot be that the parties understood that the collections made by the Fidelity, during the intervals between the days of remitting, were to be made, special deposits, but .on the contrary, it is clear that they intended that the moneys thus received shоuld pass into the general funds of the bank, and be used by it as other funds, and that when the day for remitting came, the remittance should be made .out of such general funds.
The conclusions, therefore, reached by the Circuit Court were correct, and the judgment is
Affirmed.