Sutters v Briggs: HL 25 Oct 1921

The Gaming Act 1835 by section 1 enacted that bills, and co., given in respect of gaming transactions should be deemed to have been given for illegal consideration; by section 2 that ‘in case any person shall . . execute any note, bill, or mortgage for any consideration on account of which the same is’ (by the Gaming Acts) ‘declared to be void, and such person shall actually pay to any indorsee, holder, or assignee of such note’ (and co.) ‘the amount of the debt thereby secured or any part thereof, such money so paid shall be deemed to have been taken to have been paid for and on account of the person to whom such note’ (and co.) ‘was originally given upon such illegal consideration as aforesaid . . and shall accordingly be recoverable by action at law.’ B sued S to recover pounds 50 paid by cheque in settlement of a bet. The cheque was crossed ‘not negotiable’ and ‘account payee only’ and was paid by S to his account with his bankers, who as agents for collection presented it to B’s bankers and received payment. Held that B was entitled to judgment on the grounds (1) that ‘holder’ in section 2 should be given its natural meaning, and (2) that bankers are ‘holders or indorsees’ even when they are mere agents for collection.

Lord Chancellor (Birkenhead), Lords Buckmaster, Sumner, Wrenbury, and Carson
[1921] UKHL 588, 59 SLR 588
England and Wales


Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.632642