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: 1849 To: 1899

This page lists 40 cases, and was prepared on 03 April 2018.

 
In The Matter Of The North Of England Joint Stock Banking Company And In The Matter Of The Joint Stock Companies-Winding-Up Acts, 1848 And 1849 Gouthwaite's Case [1850] EngR 753; (1850) 3 De G & Sm 258; (1850) 64 ER 469
17 Jul 1850


Insolvency, Banking

[ Commonlii ]
 
In The Matter Of The North Of England Joint Stock Banking Company And Of The Joint Stock Companies Winding-Up Acts, 1848 And 1849 Ex Parte Gouthwaite [1851] EngR 115; (1850-1851) 3 Mac & G 187; (1851) 42 ER 232
13 Jan 1851


Banking

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Robarts And Others v Tucker; 1-Feb-1851 - [1851] EngR 208; (1851) 16 QB 560; (1851) 117 ER 994
 
Pierre Poirer And Frances Emmanuel Poirier v James Morris, John Lewis Prevost And George Prevost [1853] EngR 511; (1853) 2 El & Bl 89; (1853) 118 ER 702
3 May 1853


Banking

[ Commonlii ]
 
Ramchurn Mullick v Luchmeechund Radakissen And Gobind Doss [1854] EngR 266; (1854) 9 Moo PC 46; (1854) 14 ER 215; [1854] UKPC 8
14 Feb 1854
PC

Banking
(Calcutta)
[ Commonlii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Rolin And Another v Steward, Public Officer of The East of England Bank [1854] EngR 492; (1854) 14 CB 595; (1854) 139 ER 245
8 May 1854


Damages, Banking
Substantial damages may be recovered against a banker, for dishonouring an acceptance and cheques of a customer, there being sufficient assets in his hands at the time to meet them.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Rogers v Hunt [1854] EngR 955; (1854) 10 Exch 474; (1854) 156 ER 525
25 Nov 1854


Banking, Litigation Practice

[ Commonlii ]
 
John Henry Fitch v William Jones [1855] EngR 528; (1855) 5 El and Bl 238; (1855) 119 ER 470
2 Jun 1855


Contract, Banking
Action on a promissory note at two months after date by indorsee against maker.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Louis Castrique v Guiseppe Buttigieg [1855] UKPC 26
27 Nov 1855
PC

Contract, Banking
The liability of an indorser to his immediate indorsee arises out of a contract between them, and this contract in no instance consists exclusively in the writing popularly called an indorsement, vhich is necessary to the existence of the contract in question but arises out of the written indorsement itself ;
[ Bailii ]
 
Aiken v Short (1856) 1 H&N 210
1856

Pollock CB, Platt B, Bramwell B
Banking, Equity
The testator made one will under which C was to be a residuary legatee. He then made a second will under which C was only to take a defeasible annuity. After the T's death, S advanced £200 to C on the security of an equitable charge of C's interest under the first will. S died, the defendant being his executrix. Subsequently a bank (represented by the plaintiff) advanced money to C who conveyed to the bank his supposed interest under the first will subject to S's interest. The defendant applied to C for the payment of the £200 and interest. C referred the defendant to the bank by whom C's debt to S was paid. The second will was then discovered and the bank sought recovery from the defendant of the money paid to her. Held: Pollock CB said the defendant had the right to receive the money owed by C, and said that he thought that the bank must be considered to have paid that sum for C. He said that the case seemed to him to fall within the class of cases in which a man has paid money "in his own wrong". He continued: "It may, also, be put upon this ground, that the bankers paid this money rather as the agents of . . . C than as their own money. If so, it cannot be recovered back." Platt B referred to the defendant wanting the payment by C of his debt and applying to C for payment. He said: "He refers her to the bank. They, acting as his agents, upon being referred to, pay his debt. How can that be properly recoverable? Surely the debt is satisfied. The debt was due. It is not as though there were no debt due, and there was a mistake of fact; but here the debt was actually due, and the money was paid to satisfy that debt. It appears to me clear, beyond all question, that this money cannot be recovered back."
1 Citers


 
Fanshawe v Peet, Public Officer, and co [1857] EngR 399; (1857) 2 H and N 1; (1857) 157 ER 1
17 Apr 1857


Banking

[ Commonlii ]
 
In The Matter Of The Northumberland And Durham District Banking Company, And In The Matter Of The Joint Stock Banking Companies Act, 1857 [1858] EngR 562; (1858) 2 De G & J 357; (1858) 44 ER 1028
19 Apr 1858


Banking

[ Commonlii ]
 
In The Matter Of The Northumberland And Durham District Banking Company, And In The Matter Of The Joint Stock Banking Companies Act, 1857 [1858] EngR 722; (1858) 2 De G & J 508; (1858) A)
26 May 1858


Banking

[ Commonlii ]
 
Palmer v Hendrie (1859) 27 Beav 349
1859


Banking

1 Citers


 
Hare v Edwin Henty And George Henty [1861] EngR 575; (1861) 10 CB NS 65; (1861) 142 ER 374
7 May 1861


Banking
A country banker receiving from a customer a cheque for presentment drawn upon another country banker not resident in the same town, is not bound to transmit it for presentment by the post of the day on which he receives it, but has until post-time of the next day for so doing. A, a banker at Worthing received from B a customer, a cheque drawn upon C, a banker at Lewes (which is distant about eighteen miles from Worthing on the morning of Friday, the 8th of July, and sent it that evening by post to his London correspondent, D for presentment tthrough the " country clearing house," then recently established, but in pretty general use among country bankers. D's clerk handed the cheque at the clearing house on the morning of Saturday, the 9th, to the clerk of E, the London correspondent of C. (the drawee), who sent it down by the post of that evening to C, :- Held, that the presentment was in due time.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Holroyd v Marshall (1862) 10 HLC 191
1862
HL
Lord Westbury, Lord Chelmsford
Banking
The debtor gave a mortgage not only over his existing machinery but also over all the machinery which, during the continuance of the security, should be placed in his mill. The question arose whether the equitable title of the chargee in respect of new machinery that had been placed in the mill prevailed over the rights of a judgment creditor of the chargor/debtor. Could the chargee assert an equitable interest in the new machinery? Lord Campbell LC had held not. Held: The House reversed the decision, holding that " . . immediately on the new machinery and effects being fixed or placed in the mill, they became subject to the operation of the contract, and passed in equity to the mortgagees" (Lord Westbury) and: "in equity it is not disputed that the moment the property comes into existence, the agreement operates on it" (Lord Chelmsford).

 
Cook And Another v Lister [1863] EngR 154; (1863) 13 CB NS 543; (1863) 143 ER 215; (1863) 1 New Rep 280; (1863) LJCP 121; (1863) 7 LT 712
19 Jan 1863

Willes J
Banking, Contract
Three parties including the defendant had drawn bills against each other, which bills came to the plaintiff as bona fide holder for value indorsee. Various sums had been paid on account, and the plaintiff sued the defendant but giving him credit only for the sums he had paid, saying that any excess would be held for the use of the drawers. The defendant offered to pay the sums he owed and the balance outsanding under all the bills, but no more, and paid that sum into court. Held: Though the bills were not accomodation bills as such, the defendant could not be called on to pay the sum already paid again.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Alliance Bank Ltd v Broom (1864) 2 Dr & Sm 289
1864

Sir Richard Kindersley V-C
Banking, Contract
The bank demanded security for its loan in circumstances in which it would otherwise have enforced payment. It made no promise not to demand payment but: "the [bank] did in effect give, and the defendant received, the benefit of some degree of forbearance; not, indeed, for any definite time, but, at all events, some extent of forbearance."
1 Citers


 
The Peninsular, &C, Banking Company [1866] EngR 103; (1866) 35 Beav 280; (1866) B)
15 Feb 1866


Banking

[ Commonlii ]
 
Prideaux v Criddle (1869) LR 4 QB 455
1869


Banking

1 Citers


 
Swift v Jewsbury and Goddard (1874) LR 9 QB 301
1874


Banking

1 Citers


 
In re Florence Land and Public Works Co (1878) 10 Ch D530
1878

Sir George Jessel MR
Banking
The court considered a floating charge: "The question we have to decide must be decided, like all other questions of the kind, having regard to the surrounding circumstances under which the instrument was executed, and especially the respective positions of the parties who were the contracting parties, to carry out whose agreement that instrument was executed."
1 Citers



 
 In re Colonial Trusts Corporation; CA 1879 - (1879) 15 Ch D 465

 
 Moor v Anglo-Italian Bank; CA 1879 - (1879) 10 Ch 681
 
Duncan Fox and Co v North and South Wales Bank (1880) 6 AC 1; [1874-80] All ER Rep Ext 1406
1880
HL
Lord Selborne LC
Equity, Banking
The case concerned a claim by an indorser of a bill of exchange that he was subrogated to securities provided by the acceptor to the holder of the bill. The court identified three kinds of cases in which rights of subrogation had been recognised and where suretyship principles apply: (1) where there is an agreement creating the relationship of principal and surety to which the creditor is a party; (2) where there is an agreement creating the relationship of principal and surety to which the creditor is not a party; and (3) where there is no agreement but that there is nevertheless a primary and secondary liability of two persons, the debt being 'as between the two, that of one of those persons only, and not equally of both, so that the other, if he should be compelled to pay it, would be entitled to reimbursement from the person by whom (as between the two) it ought to have been paid'.
Lord Selborne LC did not however restrict the categories of cases in which the remedy of subrogation might be available so much as identify situations that were broadly analogous to those of the case before it.

 
Bank of New South Wales v Milvain (1884) 10 VLR 3
1884


Banking, Commonwealth
The farmer customer's cheque had not been met by the bank, despite his having adequate funds to meet it. The bank appealed against the award of damages to the customer's reputation. Held: The customer, as a farmer, was not a trader, and could recover only a nominal award for damage to reputation.
1 Citers


 
Marshall and Another v Mcclure and Another (1884-85) LR 10 App Cas 325; [1885] UKPC 15
17 Mar 1885
PC

Land, Banking, Commonwealth
(Victoria) Claim as equitable mortgagee
[ Bailii ]

 
 Bank of Montreal v Sweeny; PC 1887 - (1887) 12 App Cas 617
 
Lloyd's v Harper [1888] 16 CD 290
1888

Lush LJ
Banking, Damages
Lush LJ said: " The next question which, no doubt, is a very important and substantial one, is, that Lloyds, having sustained no damage themselves could not recover for the losses sustained by third parties by reason of the default of Robert Henry Harper as an Underwriter. That, to my mind, is a startling and alarming doctrine, and a novelty, because I consider it to be an established rule of law that where a contract is made with A for the benefit of B, A can sue on the contract for the benefit of B, and recover all that B could have recovered if the contract had been made with B himself."
1 Citers


 
Bank of England v Vagliano Brothers [1891] AC 107; (1891) 60 LJQB 145; (1891) 7 TLR 333
1891

Lord Herschell, Lord Halsbury LCJ, Lord Watson, Lord Bramwell
Litigation Practice, Banking, Constitutional
The court considered the interpretation of the 1882 Act, which was said to be a codifying Act. Held: An Act is to be ascertained in the first instance from the natural meaning of its language and is not to be qualified by considerations deriving from the antecedent law.
Lord Watson said: "The decision of the Queen's Bench in Robarts v. Tucker 16 QB 560 has, ever since its date, been accepted in mercantile practice as determining the obligations incumbent upon bankers who agree to retire acceptances on account of their customers. It casts upon them the whole duty of ascertaining the identity of the person to whom they make payment with the payee whose name is upon the bill. They may pay in good faith to the wrong person, in circumstances by which the acceptor himself or men of ordinary prudence might have been misled; but they cannot take credit for such a payment in any question with the acceptor. It has been said by one of the learned Judges that the rule is a harsh one, and it is possible that in some circumstances it may operate harshly; but it appears to me to be settled beyond dispute, and I see no reason for suggesting any doubt that it puts a reasonable construction upon the contract constituted by the agreement of the banker to pay his customers' acceptances when they fall due. In the absence of any special stipulations it construes the arrangement so constituted as importing that, on the one hand, the customer is to furnish or repay to the banker the funds necessary to meet his obligations as acceptor; and that, on the other hand, the banker undertakes to apply the money provided by the customer, or advanced on his account, so as to extinguish the liability created by his acceptance. Accordingly, no payment made by the banker which leaves the liability of the acceptor undischarged can be debited to the latter."
Lord Herschell said: "I think the proper course is in the first instance to examine the language of the statute and to ask what is its natural meaning, uninfluenced by any considerations derived from the previous state of the law, and not to start with inquiring how the law previously stood, and then, assuming that it was probably intended to leave it unaltered, to see if the words of the enactment will bear an interpretation in conformity with this view." and "If a statute, intended to embody in a code a particular branch of the law, is to be treated in this fashion, it appears to me that its utility will be almost entirely destroyed, and the very object with which it was enacted will be frustrated. The purpose of such a statute surely was that on any point specifically dealt with by it, the law should be ascertained by interpreting the language used instead of, as before, by roaming over a vast number of authorities in order to discover what the law was, extracting it by a minute critical examination of the prior decisions, dependent upon a knowledge of the exact effect even an obsolete proceeding such as a demurrer to evidence."
Lord Halsbury LCJ said: "It seems to me that, construing the statute by adding to it words which are neither found therein nor for which authority could be found in the language of the statute itself, is to sin against one of the most familiar rules of construction, and I am wholly unable to adopt the view that, where a statute is expressly said to codify the law, you are at liberty to go outside the code so created, because before the existence of that code another law prevailed.”
Bills of Exchange Act 1882 7(3)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
In re Bottomgate Industrial Co-operative Society (1891) 65 LT 712
1891
QBD

Banking
An industrial society took loans on deposit which were entered in a book. in the form of a banking book. Held: It had by doing so carried on the business of a banker.
1 Citers


 
English and Scottish Mercantile Investment Co Ltd v Brunton [1892] 2 QB 700
1892
CA

Company, Banking
A debenture contained provisions that would normally have created a simple floating charge but which included a restriction on the chargor company from granting any prior charge on the assets in question. The chargor subsequently granted a charge over a fund that was one of those assets. The only issue was whether the chargee of the fund, who was aware of the existence of the debenture, had constructive knowledge of the restriction. Held: He did not, but had the chargee had such knowledge, its security would have ranked after the debenture.
1 Citers


 
Robson v Smith [1895] Ch D 118
1895

Romer J
Banking
The court approved the statement that floating charges "constitute a charge but give a licence to the company to carry on its business".
1 Citers


 
London and River Plate Bank Ltd v Bank of Liverpool Ltd [1896] 1 QB 7
1896

Mathew, J
Equity, Banking
Mathew J said: "when a bill becomes due and is presented for payment the holder ought to know at once whether the bill is going to be paid or not". And "it is manifest that the position of a man of business may be most seriously compromised, even by the delay of a day." and "It seems to me the principle underlying the decision is this: that if the plaintiff in that case so conducted himself as to lead the holder of the bill to believe that he considered the signature genuine, he could not afterwards withdraw from that position; and no single case has been produced in which, where payment has been made on a forged indorsement to the holder of it in good faith, the money has been recovered back. This case was followed by another case, Smith v. Mercer 6 Taunt 76, where it was said in the course of some of the judgments that, where a banker had paid a forged draft believing that it had been accepted by his customer, he ought to know his customer's signature. The same observations that I have made apply to that case. He may not be able by any amount of care to ascertain whether or not the acceptance was a forgery. That case, therefore, does not establish the principle for which Mr. Bigham contended. The true principle is developed in the clearest possible form in the case of Cocks v. Masterman. 9 B. & C. 902. There was an intermediate case of Wilkinson v. Johnson 3 B. & C. 428, which stands by itself, and which we need not discuss. In Cocks v. Masterman the simple rule was laid down in clear language for the first time that when a bill becomes due and is presented for payment the holder ought to know at once whether the bill is going to be paid or not. If the mistake is discovered at once, it may be the money can be recovered back; but if it be not, and the money is paid in good faith, and is received in good faith, and there is an interval of time in which the position of the holder may be altered, the principle seems to apply that money once paid cannot be recovered back. That rule is obviously, as it seems to me, indispensable for the conduct of business. A holder of a bill cannot possibly fail to have his position affected if there be any interval of time during which he holds the money as his own, or spends it as his own, and if he is subsequently sought to be made responsible to hand it back. It may be that no legal right may be compromised by reason of the payment. For instance, the acceptor may pay the bill and discover on the same day that the bill is a forgery, and so inform the holder of it, so that the holder would have time to give notice of dishonour to the other parties to the bill; but even in such a case it is manifest that the position of a man of business may be most seriously compromised, even by the delay of a day. Now that clear rule is one that ought not to be tampered with."
1 Citers



 
 Polock v Garle; 1898 - [1898] 1 Ch 1
 
Felix Hadley and Co v Hadley [1898] 2 Ch 680
1898
ChD
Byrne J
Banking
A cheque for a sum due which (a) is delivered to a creditor (b) is not returned by the creditor and (c) is met on first presentation discharges the debt as at the date the cheque is delivered.
1 Citers



 
 Perpetual Executors and Trustees Association of Australia Limited v Swan and Others; PC 3-Aug-1898 - [1898] UKPC 53; [1898] AC 763
 
Seaton v Heath [1899] 1 QB 782
1899
CA
Romer LJ
Banking
A suretyship contract is not a contract uberrimae fidei. Romer LJ said: "The risk undertaken is generally known to the surety and the circumstances generally point to the view that as between the creditor and surety it was contemplated and intended that the surety should take upon himself to ascertain exactly what risk he was taking upon himself."
1 Citers


 
In re Griffin [1899] 1 Ch 408
1899

Byrne J
Equity, Banking
The endorsement and delivery of a banker’s deposit receipt with the intention to make a gift operated as a good equitable assignment of the amount on deposit at the bank. The instruction had been handed to the donee. It did not matter that no notice had been given to the bank.
1 Citers


 
Mutton v Peat [1899] 2 Ch 556
1899

Byrne J
Banking
Byrne J said that the rule in Clayton's Case applies "as between cestuis que trust in an appropriate case", but held that in the case before him Clayton's Case did not apply because the bankers had specifically appropriated monies in a way inconsistent with it.
1 Citers


 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.