after stating tlie case as above, delivered the opinion of the court.

The single question in the case is: Are the appellees entitled to two judgments for the same debt, and to dividends on both judgments until a sufficient sum has been received to discharge one of them? The appellees, as the makers of the accommodation note, were, of course, entitled to a judgment for the amount paid to take up that note, and interest thereon. But we do not perceive upon what ground they can also recover a judgment for the amount of the credit on the books of the bank for that same debt. When the appellees made the note for the accommodation of the bank, the law settled the respective rights and duties of the parties. As between the makers of the note and the bank, the former were sureties for the latter. It was the duty of the bank to pay the note at maturity, and if it failed to do so, and the sureties paid it, the bank thereby became debtor to the sureties in the sum paid. Independently of any special agreement to that effect, when the sureties paid the note it became the duty of the bank to credit them on its books with the sum so paid for its account, and to honor their checks drawn against the same. The only variation from the obligations the law imposed on the bank was that, instead of waiting until the sureties had paid the note before giving them credit therefor, the credit was given at the inception of the transaction, but upon the distinct agreement that it was not to be drawn against until the sureties had paid the note, or any renewal thereof, or “the bank made default in the payment thereof,” so that the credit given the sureties on the books of the bank was merely anticipating the credit to which they would be entitled upon the payment of the note. ' It was to become effective only after the note had actually been paid by the sureties, or the bank had made default in the payment thereof; and it can have no other or greater force or effect for any purpose than if the credit had been placed there after the payment of the note by the sureties. It was suggested in argument that the sureties wanted this credit on the books of the bank to offset their apparent indebtedness to the bank on the accommodation note. This is not improbable, as it would seem that the parties *1003would scarcely anticipate that the bank would continuólo do business and honor checks when it: was unable to protect its sureties, and after letting its commercial paper go to protest. But, whatever may have been the motive ior giving the credit., it represents nothing different from The cause of action which accrued to the sureties by paying the note. It was made without any consideration. At the time it was made, no money was paid to the bank, and no money had been paid by the sureties on account of the bank. It was not a real, but a fictitious, credit. It was, indeed, a, false and fraudulent entry, if not one for which the officers of the bank could be held criminally liable. The parties to the transaction knew the accommodation uote was given to raise money for the use of the bank, and the money thus obtained was so used. The money obtained by the bank by negotiating1 the note was the money of the bank, and not the money of the accommodation makers of the note, and any credit given them therefor, before they paid the note, was premature, and without any consideration. This credit did not represent a trust fund, because? There was no such fund. It represented no fund whatever. There can be no trust where there is nothing to bottom the trust upon. It was not a security, collateral or otherwise, for the same reasons, and for the further reason that it was not so intended by the parties; and the rule applicable to the case of a, creditor holding two securities for the same debt does not apply. The decree of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause remanded, with instructions to dismiss the bill.