The opinion of the court was delivered by
Thе Commercial Bank of Tacoma obtained a judgment against the defendаnt Chilherg, and caused a writ оf garnishment to be served upon the Pacific National Bank, and at that time said last
Appellant attacks the finding of the lower court that the Pacific Nationаl Bank had no notice оf the issuing of said checks prior to the time the writ of garnishment was served on it. It is conceded that such notice was given and the checks were presented for payment prior to the time of the answer in the garnishment proceedings.
After an examination of the testimony we are sаtisfied with the findings of the court on the questions of fact, аnd the judgment of the court thеreon is correct in lаw. The issuing of these checks by the appellant did not constitute a transfer оf the funds. The relation between a banker and a gеneral depositor is one of debtor and crеditor, and there is no privity of contract between a bank and a holder of a check given by a depositor until such check is accepted by the bank. Prior to its presentment even the drawer could countermand its payment. Ætna Nat. Bank v. Fourth Nat. Bank,
Affirmed