572 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. cation of the facts to it comes within the general experience of mankind it is usually held to be for the jury. Such a rule, for example, is the ordinary rule of due care. Bridifes v. The North London R. R. Co., L. R. 7 H. L. 213. If, however, the rule is not clearly formulated, and if the definition, as far as it can be given, is difficult for those untrained in law to understand and so is liable to great misuse, as in the case with the rule of proximate cause, the application is for the court. Pike v. Grand Trunk R. R. Co., 39 Fed. Rep. 255. The question whether the facts in a case come within a given rule of law, is however, always a question of fact, be it for the jury or for the court, and never a question of law as the court in the present case seem to consider it. See 4 IIarv. Law Rev. 147. Trusts —Collecting Bank — Following Trust Funds. — X deposited a draft with bank A for collection, which sent the draft to Bank B, its correspondent. Bank B collected it, credited the account of bank A with the amount, and after bank A became insolvent paid the proceeds of the draft to the receiver. Held, that X is entitled to the proceeds. Guigtton v. First Nat. Bank, 55 Pac. Rep. 1051 (Mont.). The decision is sound and finds support in numerous authorities. Com. Nafl Bank V. Hamilton Nat. Bank, 42 Fed. Rep. 880 ; Henderson v. O' Conor, 106 Cal. 385 ; Com. Bankv. ArmstroniT, 148 U. S. 50. Ordinarily, payment by the sub-agent bank will change the relation between the agent bank and the depositor from that of trust to one of debtor and creditor. But the clearest principles of justice prevent the bank from assuming the position of a debtor to its depositor after its known insolvency. Mfgr's Nat. Bank v. Continental Bank, 148 Mass. 553. Trusts — Equitable assignments — Notice to Trusief.s. — A cesttii que trust of personalty assigned his interest, the assignee giving notice of his claim to all the trustees then in office. Subsequently the trustees were changed. The cesttn que trust then fraudulently executed a second assignment of his interest, and the second assignee brought his claim to the knowledge of the new trustees before they had heard of the first assignment. Held, that the first assignment has priority over the second. In re Wasdale, [1899] i Ch. D. 163. It has long been a well established doctrine in England that the assignee of an equi- table interest in personalty must give notice to the trustees of the legal title in order to render his claim secure. Dearie v. Hall, 3 Russ. i ; Foster v. Cockerell, 3 CI. & F. 456. It has besn further held that security, gained for the time being by notice to one of several trustees, may be lost by the death or retirement of that trustee from office, if a later incumbrancer is the first to bring his claim to the knowledge of the surviving trustees. Timson v. Ranisbottom, 2 Keen, 35 ; Ifi re Hall, 7 L. R. Ir. 180. Ihe ten- dency of these decisions, designed for the protection of subsequent incumbrancers who have acted in good faith and with due care, seems opposed to the holding in the prin- cipal case, for after a complete change of trustees the second incumbrancer, at the time of his transaction, is equally unprotected whether all or merely one of the original trustees were informed of the first assignment. The restriction here placed upon the doctrine of Dearie v. Hall, supra, appears arbitrary rather than logical. Yet the result reached is in accord with a sound principle that of two conflicting equities against the same person the one prior in time should prevail. REVIEWS. Select Cases in the Court of Requests, i 497-1 569. Edited for the Selden Society by I. S. Leadam. London: 1898. pp. viii, 257, The appearance of this latest volume of the publications of the Selden Society emphasizes a change that has gradually come about since, in the first volume, Professor Maitland wrote that (the aim of the Society being the publication of materials for legal history) a critical description of the manuscripts used would be a sufficient introduction. In the present volume the Introduction is half the work, and much the more important half. It is a capital introduction, and we are glad to have it ; but we should also welcome a volume chiefly filled with '* materials for legal history," — the long-promised second volume of "Select Pleas of the Crown," for example.
