The ingenious argument of defendant’s counsel is based entirely upon the assumption that the defendant was a purchaser of commercial paper for value and without *487 notice of any equities between the original parties thereto, and before maturity. If such had been the case, there can be no question that the defendant would have been entitled to hold the avails to its own use. If the course of dealings between the two banks had continued as it had been prior to June, 1891, the forwarding by the one to the other of commercial paper for collection on account of the bank so forwarding, the charging and crediting each other with said items upon a mutual running account, and the remission by the debtor to the creditor bank of balances from time to time, the question would have arisen whether one bank became the purchaser for value of the paper received by it for collection by reason of the fact that the balance of account was against the remitting bank.

Even if this were the case presented to us, we should be inclined to adopt the rulings of the New York Court of Appeals in McBride v. Bank, 26 N. Y., 450: “ It is not a purchaser for value by reason of its having a balance against the remitting bank, for which it had refrained from drawing, and from having discounted notes for the latter upon its endorsements, in reliance upon a course of dealings between the banks to collect notes for each other, each keeping an open account of such collections, treating all the paper sent for collection as the property of the other, and drawing for balances at pleasure”; or that of the Supreme Court of the United States in Bank of the Metropolis v. New England Bank, 6 Howard, 212, where the above stated principle seems to be somewhat modified. In substance, the Court say that the receiving bank is not entitled to retain against the real owners unless credit was given to the transmitting bank, or balances suffered to remain in its hands to be met by the negotiable paper transmitted, or expected to be transmitted, in the usual course of dealings between the two banks. See 2d Morse on Banking, §591, el seq., where the subject is largely discussed.

*488 ■ If this were an open question it would not affect the case before us. By the case agreed it appears that, up to June, 1891, there had been such a course of mutual dealings and running accounts between the two banks as is referred to above, but, some time prior to June 1, 1893, there was a change in the arrangement between these banks, and it was mutually agreed to close the mutual accounts and that each bank should remit to the other, daily, the respective items, when collected. However, in fact, the Bank of New Planover did not remit daily each item when collected, as appears by the appended statement. And it further appears that, by this change of the course of dealings between the banks, although the agreement was not strictly complied with by the Bank of New Planover, the said bank did remit to the Fidelity Bank its drafts on New York in payment of the balances against the former and .in favor of the latter bank, and that the draft in question was sent for collection. It was by the dishonor of the New York paper sent in payment of balances that the defendant became the loser. And we are of the opinion that the defendant was acting in the capacity of sub-agent in the collection of the plaintiff’s draft. Manufacturers Bank v. Continental Bank, 148 Mass., 553. Under the arrangement that then existed between the two banks, the defendant could in no sense be considered a purchaser for value of the draft in question. The defendant was the agent of the Bank of New Hanover to collect the draft, and if it had authority to credit the said bank with the avails of the collection it was only so while the bank was a going concern, But the bank became insolvent before the agency was completed and the money received, so that no authority-existed to credit the money on general account. 2 Morse on Banking, § 568.‘

As we hold that in no event was the defendant a purchaser of the draft, it will not be necessary to follow the argument of counsel upon that line. There is No Error.