Bank-held remittance funds may remain customer property, giving the customer priority over ordinary creditors.

Money handed to a bank for telegraphic transfer, where it was received for a specific remittance purpose, never credited to the applicant's current account, and the transfer was not completed before the bank suspended payment, was treated as held apart as the applicant's property. On those facts, the bank was regarded as acting merely as agent rather than as owner of the funds, and the applicant was entitled to preferential payment ahead of ordinary creditors.

---

---

Issues: Whether the sum handed to the bank for telegraphic transfer was held apart as the applicant's property and, if so, whether the applicant was entitled to payment in preference to the ordinary creditors.

Analysis: The money was received for the specific purpose of remittance, was not credited to the applicant's current account, and the intended transfer was never carried out because the bank suspended payment on the same day. On these facts, the sum was treated as kept apart by the bank as the applicant's property and as money received in the capacity of a mere agent.

Conclusion: The applicant's claim for preferential payment was upheld.

---