Bergstresser v. Lodewick

All concurred, except Ward, J., not voting. The following is the opinion of Nash, J.; Nash, J.: The case here cannot be distinguished in principle from that of People v. City Bank of Rochester (96 N. Y. 32). There the opinion of the court says that the transaction was not between the bank and Sarfcwell, Hugh & Ford in their relation of debtor and creditor, nor in the relation of bank and depositor. The object of the firm of Sartwell, Hugh & Ford was to provide a fund for the payment of specific notes, and the engagement of the bank was to apply that fund to such payment. Thus a trust was…