Security deposit held as debtor-creditor funds, not trust property, so only ordinary creditor status survived in liquidation.

A security deposit placed with a bank, carried at interest and treated by the parties as money available for the bank's use, was held not to constitute trust property in liquidation. The surrounding conduct showed that the bank held the deposit as debtor rather than trustee: the funds were mixed with the bank's assets, and the depositor accounted for interest as part of the banking relationship. On that basis, the depositor could claim only as an ordinary creditor, and the claim to follow the money as trust property failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a security deposit placed with the bank and carried at interest remained trust property capable of being followed in liquidation, or whether the depositor was only an ordinary creditor.

Analysis: The deposit was received by the bank with the depositor's consent, carried in an interest-bearing account, and treated by the parties as money held for the bank's use. The surrounding conduct showed that the bank was not holding the money as trustee but as debtor, since the deposit was mixed with the bank's funds and the depositor himself accounted for interest on it as part of his dealings with the bank.

Conclusion: The deposit was not trust property in the liquidator's hands. The depositor ranked only as an ordinary creditor.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the order treating the claim as that of an ordinary creditor was maintained, with no order as to costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a security deposit is received by a bank with consent, mixed with its funds, and held on interest for its use, the relationship is one of debtor and creditor and not trustee and beneficiary, so the amount cannot be claimed as trust property in liquidation.

---