Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Banking - From: 1800 To: 1849

This page lists 17 cases, and was prepared on 03 April 2018.

 
Scott v Gillmore [1810] EngR 393; (1810) 3 Taunt 226; (1810) 128 ER 90 (A)
6 Jul 1810


Banking, Contract
A bill of exchange, part of the consideration for which is spirituous liquor sold in less quantities than of 20s. value, is totally void, though part of the consideration was money lent -The statute 24 G. 2, c. 40, s. 12, making illegal the sale of spirits in less quantities than to 20s. value, unless paid for, extends to spirits mixed with water.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
John v Lewellin [1811] EngR 46; (1806, 1807, 1811) 6 Esp 101; (1811) 170 ER 843 (A)
1811


Banking
Though an instrument comes out of the possession of the adverse party in consequence of a notice to produce it, if it has been executed in the presence of a subscribing witness, he must be called to prove the execution of it
[ Commonlii ]
 
Phillips v Bateman 104 ER 1124; (1812) 16 East 356
1812


Contract, Banking
A, was faced with a run on a banking house, and promised to support the bank with £30,000. Note holders stopped withdrawing their money, but the bank subsequently stopped paying out. Held: A was not liable to an action by individual holders of bank notes, under the doctrine of privity of contract.

 
Devaynes v Noble; Baring v Noble, Clayton's Case [1816] 1 Mer 572; [1814-23] All ER Rep 1; [1816] 35 ER 781
1816
CA
Grant MR
Banking, Company, Insolvency
A partner in a banking firm died. The surviving partners continued to trade without making any changes. They later fell into bankruptcy. Creditors of the bank at the date of the death still traded with the bank with varying changes in their banking accounts. Held: The fact that they continued to trade with the continuing partners did not discharge the estate of the deceased partner. Grant MR said: "I apprehend by the general mercantile law, a partnership contract is several as well as joint. That may probably be the reason why courts of equity have considered joint contracts of this sort, that is joint in form, as standing on a different footing from others."
1 Citers

[ Worldii ]
 
Murray and Others v Tod and Others [1817] ScotJCR 1_Murray_222; (1817) 1 Murray 222
13 Mar 1817
SJC

Scotland, Banking
This was a multiplepoinding brought by the treasurer of the Royal Bank of Scotland, for the purpose of ascertaining who had right to two promissory notes, the one for L. 800, the other for L. 200.
The claimants on the one side were the nearest of kin of the late Mr Tod, and on the other certain parties who claimed those notes as having been delivered to a third party to be held for their behoof.
[ Bailii ]
 
Allen v Keeves [1819] EngR 5; (1799, 1801, 1819) 3 Esp 281; (1819) 170 ER 616 (A)
1819


Banking

[ Commonlii ]
 
William Duncan v Samuel Hill, Richard Hill, Henry Wright, And George Bolton Mainwaring [1821] EngR 407; (1821) 2 Br & B 682; (1821) 129 ER 1129
2 Jun 1821


Banking

[ Commonlii ]
 
Eyles v Ellis (1827) 4 Bing 112
1827

Best CJ
Banking
There had been an incoming transfer for value on a particular date and the issue was whether the payment had been made on that date. Held: The question as to whether a payment had been made on the value date was to be tested by reference to an account entry at the close of business on that date. An account could be held to be effectively credited if the bank's book entries showed a credit and regardless of whether there was notice of that credit to the customer. "... on the 8th a sum was actually placed to the plaintiff's account; and though no money was transferred in specie, that was an acknowledgement from the bankers that they had received the amount from Ellis. The plaintiff might then have drawn for it, and the bankers could not have refused his draft." and "The issue is whether or not a completed payment had been made by the defendants to the plaintiffs on June 26. This is a question of law. If the answer is "Yes," it is not contested that the plaintiffs have a good cause of action. If there were no authorities on this point, I think that the reaction, both of a lawyer and a banker, would be to answer this question in the affirmative. I think that both would say two things. First, that in such circumstances a payment has been made if the payee's account is credited with the payment at the close of business on the value date, at any rate if it was credited intentionally and in good faith and not by error or fraud. Secondly, I think that they would say that if a payment requires to be made on a certain day by debiting a payor customer's account and crediting a payee customer's account, then the position at the end of that day in fact and in law must be that this has either happened or not happened, but that the position cannot be left in the air. In my view both these propositions are correct in law."

 
Jose Ventura De Aguiree Solarte, Abel, And Anselmo De Arroyave, Assignees, Etc, Of Joaquim Ruez De Alzedo, A Bankrupt v John Archdale Palmer, And William Bough [1834] EngR 186; (1834) 8 Bligh NS PC 874; (1834) 5 ER 1166
1834
PC

Banking
Upon the dishonour of a bill of exchange by the acceptor, a letter was written to the indorsers in the following terms :-- "A bill for £683, drawn by " J. upon D. & Co., and bearing your indorsement, has been put into our hands by the assignees of A." (the holder, who had become bankrupt), with directons to take legal measures for the recovery thereof unless immediately paid.
Held: upon a bill of exceptions to the direction of the judge, upon the trial of an action against the indorser to recover the amount of the bill, that this was not a sufficient notice of the dishonour and non-payment of the bill to entitle the plaintiffs to maintain their action.
[ Commonlii ]
 
John Penny, Surviving Partner Of Robert Brookes v John Rose Innes [1834] EngR 180; (1834) 1 CrM & R 439; (1834) 149 ER 1152 (B)
1834


Banking

[ Commonlii ]
 
Noel v Rich [1835] EngR 181; (1835) 2 CrM & R 360; (1835) 150 ER 155
1835


Banking
Indorsee against drawer of a bill of exchange. Plea-that the defendant's indorsement was in blank; that the defendant delivered the bill to A. (not a party to the bill) only to get it discounted for him; that A. fraudulently, and in violation of that special purpose, delivered it to B. to secure a debt due from A. to B; of all which the plaititiff had notice. Held, on general demurrer, that the plea was bad for not shewing distinctly that the defendant never had value for the bill. Semble, that a replication to such plea, "that the defendant broke his promise without the cause alleged by him in his plea,” is good.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Dixon v Chambers [1835] EngR 63; (1835) 1 CrM & R 845; (1835) 149 ER 1322 (A)
1835


Banking

[ Commonlii ]
 
William Holmes v Thomas Henry, Jeremiah Lear, John Lear, And Robt French, And Also James Hopkins, John Cole Tompkins, And Henry James Parsons [1836] EngR 276; (1836) 10 Bligh NS PC 255; (1836) 6 ER 96
1836
PC

Banking

[ Commonlii ]
 
William Holmes v Thomas Henty, Jeremiah Lear, John Lear And Robert French; And Also James Hopkins, John Cole Tompkins, And Henry James Parsons [1836] EngR 751; (1836) 4 Cl & Fin 100; (1836) 7 ER 38
31 May 1836


Banking

[ Commonlii ]
 
Brookes v Farlar [1836] EngR 1043; (1836) 3 Bing NC 291; (1836) 132 ER 422
15 Nov 1836


Banking
The Defendant is not entitled to demand particulars on a count for a bill of exchange.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Powney v Blomberg [1844] EngR 772; (1844) 14 Sim 179; (1844) 60 ER 325
11 Jul 1844


Contract, Banking
A. executed B bond and mortgage to B. to secure £2,000 lent to him by B., with interest at 5%.
B having sold out a sum of stock to enable her to make the loan, the dividends of which exceeded the interest of the £2000 at £5 per cent., A. afterwards agreed, in consideration of her Ietting the £2000 continue secured at interest as aforesaid, to transfer to her, when requested so to do, the amount of the stock sold out, or, at her option, to pay to her a sum of money sufficient to repurchase it, and, in the meantime, to pay to her the amount of the dividends of it, intstead of the interest of the £2000.
Held, that the agreement was additional to and not substitutional for the bond and mortgage, and was, therefore, usurious.
[ Commonlii ]

 
 Miles v Pope; 9-Dec-1847 - [1847] EngR 1002; (1847) 5 CB 294; (1847) 136 ER 890
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.