Having elected to trust to the solvency of the Bank, and its
promise to repay the amount lodged with interest instead of
cash, it would be completely altering the method selected to dis-
regard the ability of the Bank to repay, and claim as if cash had
been lodged directly with the Secretary. All the depositor could
claim was the release of his own money temporarily impounded
by his own act, and the title to which - as a specific and clearly
identifiable fund, always as between him and the Crown remained
in himself, subject to partial or total divestiture on stipulated
conditions which had not occurred. Kemp was entrusted with
the legal custody, not of the money, for that was left in the
Bank, but with the means of obtaining it, and only after twelve
months' time, and then on behalf of the person or persons who,
according to the stipulated events which might occur, should
prove to be the rightful claimant or claimants of the whole or
distributive portions of it. It might then be wholly payable to
the Crown, or wholly to Pigott, or partly to one and partly to
the other. As it happened, it belonged wholly to Pigott, free from
any adverse claim, the Crown, never having had any interest in
it beyond the right of security, ceasing to have even that. Kemp
was bound, in my opinion, on Pigott's request, to endeavour to
obtain from the Bank, on behalf of and as trustee for Pigott,
whatever, as between Pigott and the Bank, the latter was liable
to pay. A donee of a deposit note cannot sue in his own
name: per Lindley LJ. in In re Dillon; Dufin v. Duffin (1),
and the holder by merely writing his name on the document and
delivering it to another confers no legal right on the person to
whom he gives it: per May C.J. in Moore v. Ulster Bank (2).
Kemp, therefore, was impliedly bound when so required to take
~ (1) 44. Ch. D., 76, at p. 83. (2) Ir. R., WC.L, 512,