Shaw v. Davidson

(after stating the case as above). [1 -3] It is contended by the banking commissioner that, in effect, the deposit was neither a special deposit to be specifically returned nor a deposit within the terms of the Depositors’ Guaranty Fund Act (Rev. St. 1925, art. 441 et seq.), but a deposit of a nature allowable as a general creditor’s claim only. The trial court concluded that the deposit was not in point of fact a special deposit such as would be subject to be specifically reclaimed, but was of the kind protected under the depositors’ guaranty fund. It is believed that the ruling of the trial…