Quote Originally Posted by doug555 View Post
Does "lawful money" confer legal title as well equitable title when one demands it?

If yes, then shouldn't we also demand "special deposit" on the restrictive endorsement on, for example, a payroll check (and also on bank signature card), so that one retains legal title (ownership) of the substance/labor that it represents, and that bank only gets equitable title (use) while it is in their possession?

Unless we retain legal title, how can ever truly pay for and have legal title of the goods/services those funds are exchanged for?

My point and belief is that we should add the phase "special deposit" to the non-endorsement wording, for example:

"Special deposit and lawful money per 12 USC 411 are demanded for all transactions."


Using "special deposit" invokes trust law and equity, which is something that I believe is needed for enforcement of our "unalienable rights" ("Black's 4th: rights that cannot be sold or transferred").

This needs more research, and perhaps the senior members here can provide more insight on this...
Albeit food for thought; my first reaction is that the special deposit demand is inherent in the demand for lawful money. Here we are getting into the banker's business and I am not against that. I am just not really that concerned.

But my first notion on it is that all customers at a certain bank would have their deposited bills together, all on the same ledger. The only difference between the special deposit demand and not would be that when you made a withdrawal you might be getting bills from another customer there who demands lawful money when he makes a paycheck deposit.