References: [1921] 1 KB 321
Coram: Bankes LJ, Atkin LJ
Ratio: Money was stolen by a thief. He then paid it by way of a gift into the bank account of the woman with whom he was living. The victim claimed its return from the woman and her bankers. andpound;315 of the balance in her account represented part of the stolen money. She argued that, having no notice of the theft, she obtained a good title to it because it was a gift to her from the thief and the fact that she had paid the money into her banking account prevented any following of the money and that an action for money received would therefore not lie.
Held: The victim was entitled to the andpound;315. The woman, as a donee, had been unjustly enriched by the receipt of money stolen from the victim and retained andpound;315, part of that money. She was bound to reimburse the victim. The trust could be followed into the bank account and it ordered return of the andpound;315.
Bankes LJ said: ‘To accept either of the two contentions with which I have been so far dealing would be to assent to the proposition that a thief who has stolen money, and who from fear of detection hands that money to a beggar who happens to pass, gives a title to the money to the beggar as against the true owner – a proposition which is obviously impossible of acceptance.’
Atkin LJ said: ‘as the money paid into the bank can be identified as the product of the original money, the plaintiffs have the common law right to claim it, and can sue for money had and received.’
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Shalson v Russo ChD (Times 03-Sep-03, Gazette 18-Sep-03)
The claimant sought recovery of substantial sums he had advanced by way of loan, where the loan was induced by fraud. He sought to trace the funds into, inter alia, a motor yacht which it had been used to purchase.
Held: The transaction was . . - Cited – Lipkin Gorman (a Firm) v Karpnale Ltd HL ([1991] 2 AC 548, Bailii, [1988] UKHL 12, [1991] 3 WLR 10)
The plaintiff firm of solicitors sought to recover money which had been stolen from them by a partner, and then gambled away with the defendant. He had purchased their gaming chips, and the plaintiff argued that these, being gambling debts, were . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 17 March 2019
Ref: 186100
