BENIN J.
By exhibit 1, being an assignment dated 25 April 1979, the defendants in the present interpleader suit granted a loan facility of ¢315,000 to a customer of theirs called Issahaku Fuseini to enable him pay for two vehicles, namely a combine harvester (the subject matter of the present proceedings) and a Nissan pick-up. The money was paid direct to Fuseini’s vendors. The further terms of the assignment were that in consideration of the said sum paid to Fuseini’s vendors, he Fuseini was assigning to the defendants the said vehicles “by way of security for the repayment” of the loan. The customer was allowed to take possession of the vehicles, to maintain and generally to operate them, and apparently without rendering any account or as it is popularly called “sales” to the defendants. Fuseini’s only obligation was to repay the loan facility granted, on payment of which the vehicles would “cease to be the property of the bank and the bank shall renounce any claim to the same.” It …