I. The contract, under the provisions of which the money in question was sent by the state treasurer to the bank, and the manner in which the money was credited and disbursed by the bank, show plainly that the ordinary relation of banker and depositor never arose, and that Congress could never have contemplated the inclusion of such moneys for purposes of taxation under the general title of "deposits" as used in the act. On the contrary, it seems that the bank, as to the funds in dispute, was merely the salaried disbursing agent of the State and a trustee for the State's creditors. Mechanics' Bank v. Merchants' Bank, 6 Met. (Mass.) 13; Libby v. Hopkins, 164 U.S. 303; Sharpless v. Welsh, 4 Dall. 279; Locomotive Works v. Kelley, 88 N.Y. 234; People v. City Bank, 96 N.Y. 32; National Bank v. Insurance Co., 104 U.S. 54; Van Alen v. American Bank, 52 N.Y. 1; Pennell v. Deffell, 4 De G., M. G. 372; Frith v. Cartlandt, 2 Hem. Mill. 417; Martin v. Funk, 75 N.Y. 134. II.

ot be entered against the garnishee (Hemphill v. Yerkes, 132 Pa. 545; Smith v. Keener, 270 Pa. 578; Sturgeon Bay Bank v. McLaughlin, 63 Pa. Super. 588), nor can there be where an equitable transfer of title appears (Patten v. Wilson, 34 Pa. 299; Barnes v. Alexander, 232 U.S. 117), even though no notice of ownership was given to the holder of the fund: Jarecki Mfg. Co. v. Hart Bros., 5 Pa. Super. 422. The same principle applies when funds are held on special deposit, or in trust for the benefit of third parties (Burger v. Burger, 135 Pa. 499; Farmers Mechanics Bank v. King, 57 Pa. 202; B. O. R. R. Co. v. Kensington Land Co., 175 Pa. 95), though the settlor cannot put aside assets for his own use so as to deprive creditors of their rights therein: Nolan v. Nolan, 218 Pa. 135; Patrick v. Bingaman, 2 Pa. Super. 113. Where funds have been deposited to be used for the payment of specific claims there is an appropriation which places them beyond the grasp of the one attempting to attach: Sharpless v. Welsh, 4 Dall. 279; Watson v. Bagaley, 12 Pa. 164; Johnston v. Root Mfg. Co., 241 U.S. 160; Smith v. Sanborn State Bank, 147 Iowa 640, 126 N.W. 779. And the mere power to revoke (Watson v. Bagaley, supra), or the retention of the right to the balance remaining after the payment of the claims provided for (Vincent v. Watson, 18 Pa. 96), will not affect the status of the parties. An operative trust is one which imposes upon the one named as the depositary the duty of taking measures to protect the property in his hands: 39 Cyc. 30. A simple trust gives the beneficiary the right to possession and control, and power of disposal for his own use, while a special one confers no more than the right to enforce in equity the intention of the settlor to the extent of his interest: Vaux v. Parke, 7 W. S. 19. "Whenever it is necessary for the accomplishment of any object of the creator of a trust that the legal estate should remain in the trustee, then the trust is a special active one": Gourley's Est., 238 Pa. 62