In the absence of actual knowledge of the identity of the person whose funds the plaintiff seeks to bind, the garnishee is not liable under the facts of this case. Hantman v. West Side Trust Savings Bank, 249 Ill. App. 372; Kunde v. Prentice, 160 N.E. 193, 329 Ill. 82; German National Bank v. National State Bank, 5 Col. App. 427, 39 P. 71; William G. White v. Springfield Institution for Savings, 134 Mass. 232; Terry v. Sisson, 125 Mass. 560; Pure Oil Co. v. Walsh-Woldert Motor Co., 36 S.W.2d 802; 5 Michie, Banks Banking, p. 112, sec. 51; King v. McElroy, 55 A. 632, 25 R.I. 222; 28 C.J. 220, sec. 296. The appellee bank was under a positive duty as to the exercise of care in disclosing information with respect to its depositors.

It points out the heavy burden which noncompliance may cast upon the garnishee, who is usually an innocent, disinterested stakeholder; that noncompliance might even compel the garnishee bank to stop withdrawals from all accounts in the same or similar names. It cites Hantman v. West Side Trust Savings Bank, 249 Ill. App. 372. It also suggests the propriety of the enforcement of the rule for the reason that by refusing to pay or honor checks of depositors the garnishee bank might be liable in an action for slander of credit. It insists, relying on North Ave. Bldg. Loan Ass'n v. Huber, 286 Ill. 375, that noncompliance deprives the court of jurisdiction and therefore possibly a garnishee who paid might be liable in another action by the judgment debtor. It finally suggests that failure to comply with this rule might necessitate a trial as to the identity of the judgment debtor, thus increasing the burden of the court and litigants, including the garnishee, so that instead of garnishment being a quick and efficient remedy it would become a cumbersome, inefficient and expensive process.