◆ SpookStack

8 Lewis vs. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland. Act. It appears that the balance on hand June 25, 1930, was with- drawn soon thereafter; that between June 25, 1930 and the ap- pointment of the receiver, May 23, 1932, deposits were regularly made aggregating a large sum; that from time to time checks were drawn against these deposits; and that all of the balance in bank when the receiver was appointed represented deposits made after the passage of the Act.% The appointment of the bank as de- pository in 1928 and the bond were to cover a period of four years. Though the lien was in form security for the bond, the extent of liability was to be measured by the unpaid balance. Thus, the transaction was not completed in 1928; it was contemplated that there would be continuous dealings between the parties for four years. In fact, the relation continued until the appointment of the receiver. Thronghout the whole period the parties intended that the lien should be operative and supposed that it was. The appointment was within the power of the State to confer and of the bank to accept, but by reason of the paramount federal law one of the anticipated incidents of the relation, the lien, could not arise. When that obstacle was removed by the Act of June 25, 1930, the original agreement could as to the future be given the effect intended by the parties, and the lien became operative as to deposits thereafter made and is entitled to priority from the date of the Act. A statute is not retroactive merely because it draws upon antecedent facts for its operation, Compare Cor v. Hart, 260 U. 8. 427, 435; Ewell v. Daggs, 108 U.S. 148; Petterson v. Berry, 125 Fed. 902; Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Fy. Co,, 62 Fed. 904, 910; Rosenplanter v. Provident Savings etc. Soc., 96 Fed. 721. It was not necessary to go through the form of executing a new bond. Compare Jones v. Guaranty and Indemnity Co., 101 U. 8, 622, 627. We have no occasion to consider whether the Act of June 25, 1930, would have validated the lien also in respect to deposits made before that date. Compare Gross v. United States Mortgage Co., 108 U.S. 477, 488; West Side Belt R. RB. v. Pitts- burg Construction Co., 219 U. S. 92; Charlotte Harbor d: North- ern Ry v. Welles, 260 U, 8. 8, Affirmed. 18The facts concerning the dates of the deposits and the amounts were sup- plied by counsel for the Comptroller of the Currency who joined with counsel for petitioners in briefs and argument.