We agree with the circuit judge that the relation created between the banks as to uncollected paper 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 not 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 handed it to the Fidelity. The Fidelity handed it to a subagent. The 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 was not applied by the subagent in reducing the indebtedness of the Fidelity to it, but it was held 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 indorsement 'for collection' was notice that its possession was that of agent, and not of owner. In Sweeny v. Easter, 1 Wall. 166, 173, in which there was an indorsement 'for collection,' Mr. Justice Miller said: 'The words 'for collection' evidently had a meaning. That meaning was intended to limit the effect which would have been given to the indorsement without them, and warned the party that, contrary to the purpose of a general or blank indorsement, this was not intended to transfer the ownership of the note or its proceeds.' And in White v. Bank, 102 U. S. 658, 661, where the indorsement was 'for account,' the same justice, speaking of the indorsement, said: 'It does not purport to transfer the title of the paper, or the ownership of the money when received.' The plaintiff, then, as principal, could unquestionably have controlled the paper at any time before its payment, and this control extended to such time as the money was received by its agent, the Fidelity. Bank v. Hubbell, 117 N. Y. 384, 22 N. E. Rep. 1031; Manufacturers' Nat. Bank v. Continental Bank, 148 Mass. 553, 20 N. E. Rep. 193; Freeman's Nat. Bank v. National Tube Works, 151 Mass. 413, 24 N. E. Rep. 779; Armstrong v. Bank, (Ky.) 14 S. W. Rep. 411; First Nat. Bank of Crown Point v. First Nat. Bank of Richmond, 76 Ind. 561. In those cases the suits were against subagent banks. It is true that in most of them the collection was made by the subagent after the avowed insolvency of the agent, but that fact we cannot think is decisive. If, before the subagent parts with the money, or credits it upon an indebtedness of the agent bank to it, the insolvency of the latter is disclosed, it ought not to place the funds which it has collected, and which it knows belong to a third party, in the hands of that insolvent agent or its assignee; and, on the other hand, such insolvent agent has no equity in claiming that this money, which it has not yet received, and which belongs to its principal, should be transferred to, and mixed with, its general funds in the hands of its assignee for the benefit of its general creditors, and to the exclusion of the principal for whom it was collected. Whether it be said that such funds are specifically traceable in the possession of the subagent, or that the agent has never reduced those funds to possession, or put itself in a position where it could rightfully claim that it has changed the relation of agent to that of debtor, the result is the same. The Fidelity received this paper as agent. At the time of its insolvency, when its right to continue in business ceased, it had not fully performed its duties as agent and collector. It had not received the moneys collected by its subagent. They were traceable as separate and specific funds, and therefore the plaintiff was entitled to have them paid out of the assets in the hands of the receiver, for, when he collected them from these subagents, he was, in fact, collecting them as the agent of the principal. No mere bookkeeping between the Fidelity and its subagents could change the actual status of the parties, or destroy rights which arise out of the real facts of the transaction.

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 the 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 bookkeeping 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, however, 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 was created when the collections were fully made. The agreement was to collect at par, and remit the 1st, 11th, and 21st 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 intervals 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 parties, 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 collections 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, 2 Wall. 252, is in point, though it may be conceded that the facts in that tending to show the relation of debtor and creditor are more significant than those here. In the spring of 1861 the Fulton Bank of New York sent two notes for collection to the Marine Bank of Chicago. There being some trouble about currency, the Fulton Bank requested the Marine Bank to hold the avails of the collection subject to order, and advise amount credited. Afterwards the Marine Bank sought to pay in the currency which it had received on the collection, then largely depreciated, but its claim in this respect was denied; Mr. Justice Miller, speaking for the court, saying: 'The truth, undoubtedly, is that both parties understood that, when the money was collected, plaintiff was to have credit with the defendant for the amount of the collection, and that defendant would use the money in its business. Thus the defendant was guilty of no wrong in using the money, because it had become its own. It was used by the bank in the same manner that it used the money deposited with it that day by city customers, and the relation between the two banks was the same as that between the Chicago bank and its city depositors. It would be a waste of argument to attempt to prove that this was a debtor and creditor relation. All deposits made with bankers may be divided into two classes, namely, those in which the bank becomes bailee of the depositor, the title to the thing deposited remaining with the latter; and that other kind of deposit of money peculiar to banking business, in which the depositor, for his own convenience, parts with the title to his money, and loans it to the banker, and the latter, in consideration of the loan of the money, and the right to use it for his own profit, agrees to refund the same amount, or any part thereof, on demand. The case before us is not of the former class. It must be of the latter.'

That reasoning is applicable here. Bearing in mind the 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 should 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.