It may be said to be a rule without exception that where a creditor enforces his claim against the assets of an insolvent bank, he can gain no priority from filing the suit to enforce his claim.1 It is true that in some statutory systems the creditor first suing at law a stockholder for the stockholder's liability gains a preference as to that particular stockholder, but in such a case it is needless to observe the stockholder's liability is not an asset of the bank. In all cases, however, where the creditor sues in equity, he must sue on behalf of himself and all other creditors similarly situated, whether he sues to enforce a claim that belongs to the bank, such as the right to pursue the officers of the bank, or a claim of the bank against third parties, or the stockholders' liability. In either case all the general creditors are upon the same level.2 But the so-called creditors may have different rights as against the bank. Thus the claimant may be a mere general depositor, or he may be a special depositor. He may have been defrauded of his property by the bank, which has thus become a trustee for him as to what it has obtained. The bank may be bailee of his property by reason of a collection having been intrusted to it. The case may be one where trust funds are in the bank or public funds. The creditor may have an assignment from the bank of a particular fund or a portion thereof. Special preferences and priorities may be given by statute. Each one of these cases causes interesting questions of law to arise, which are somewhat difficult of settlement, owing to the difficulty of tracing the claimant's property into and separating it from the funds of the bank. It will be found that different courts have made wholly diverse rulings upon these subjects. One species of priority has already been noticed, that of set-off, whereby the claimant in effect obtains a priority by gaining the right to have his claim settled in full.3 In the succeeding sections we will examine these various subjects.

4 Richardson v. Wallace, 39 S. C. 216.

5 Bacon v. Robertson, 18 How. 480. Lum v. Robertson, 6 Wall. 277, holds the same doctrine as to a judicial forfeitura The assets belong to the stockholders subject to the payment of the debts of the bank.

6Hollister v. Hollister Bank, 2 Keyes, 245; State v. Commercial State Bank, 28 Neb. 677; Dabney v. State Bank, 3 S. C. 124. Unless, of course, they have claims as creditors against the bank, when they come in as creditors. Appeal of Craig, 92 Pa. 396.

1 Irons v. Manufacturers' Nat. Bank, 27 Fed. R. 591.

2 Richmond v. Irons, 121 U. S. 27; Exchange Bank v. Knox, 19 Grat 739; Marr v. Bank of West Tennessee, 4 Cold. 471; Robinson v. Gardner, 18 Grat. 509. And see Sec. Sec. 61, 65, 68, 69, ante, and as to national banks see Sec. 70, ante.