Abraham Wildey Robarts and Others v Robert Tucker
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 February 1851 |
| Date | 01 February 1851 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 117 E.R. 994
IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
S. C. 20 L. J. Q. B. 270; 15 Jur. 987. Distinguished and approved, Woods v. Thiedemann, 1862, 1 H. & C. 491. Adopted, Halifax Union v. Wheelwright, 1875, L. R. 10 Ex. 191. Discussed, Arnold v. Cheque Bank, 1876, 1 C. P. D. 587. See Bank of England v. Vagliano, 1888-91, 22 Q. B. D. 116; 23 Q, B. D. 116; 23 Q. B. D. 254; [1891] A. C. 107; Scholfield v. Londesborough, [1895] 1 Q. B. 543; [1896] A. C. 536.
[WO] in the exchequer chamber. (error from the queen's bench.) abraham wildey eobarts and others against robert tucker (suing as Secretary to, and on behalf of, the Pelican Life Insurance Company). Saturday, February 1st, 1851. An insurance company were in the practice of paying losses due to country customers by accepting drafts on the company in London, drawn by their country agent to the order of the customer. The drafts were not drawn kill the company in London gave the agent leave to draw : nor accepted till they bore the indorsement of the payees, and were found, on examination, to correspond with the leave to draw. When accepted, they were made payable at the bank of R., the London banker of the company. R. was not informed of this practice. A loss of 50001. became due to I. at Manchester. The agent of the company at Manchester, in pursuance of their leave, drew on the company a draft for 50001. payable to the order of I., and delivered it to I.'s solicitor. This draft, purporting to be indorsed by I. to the order of J. & L. (London bankers), was by J. & L. presented for payment to the company, and accepted, payable at R.'s bank. On maturity, it was there paid to J. & L. This payment was debited to the company in the pass book delivered to them. They credited R. with the payment. No objection was made till, six months afterwards, it was discovered that the indorsement purporting to be that of I. was a forgery by the solicitor; and the company were compelled to pay I, The company brought assumpsit against R, 1st count: That defendant as banker (among other things) promised plaintiffs, while he should have funds of the plaintiffs, to pay, to the lawful holders thereof, all such bills of exchange aa should be accepted by plaintiffs payable at defendant's, and not to pay any such bills to any person not the lawful holder thereof; and to debit plaintiffs in account only with such bills, so accepted, as should be paid to the lawful holders thereof. Breaches of these promises were alleged. 2d count, for money lent. Pleas (amongst others) : non assumpsit; and, to the second count, payment and set-off. At the trial, the above facts being admitted, the Judge directed the jury to find a verdict for the plaintiff, with nominal damages on the first count, and 50001. on the second. On bill of exceptions to the ruling, Held, by the Court of Exchequer Chamber, on error: that the acceptance of a bill of exchange payable at a banker's is tantamount to an order to the banker to pay the bill to any person who according to the law merchant can give a valid discharge for it, and not merely to the lawful holder; and that the banker may debit his customer with such payment. And that the first count misstated the undertaking of bankers, and was not proved, and that the Judge's direction was so far wrong. But Held, that a banker cannot debit his customer with the payment made to one who claims, through a forged indorsement and so cannot give a valid discharge for the bill; unless there be circumstances amounting to a direction from the customer to the bankers to pay the bill without reference to the genuineness of the indorsement, or equivalent to an admission of its genuine-nesgi inducing the banker to alter his position, so as to preclude the customer from shewing it to be forged : that the facts in this case afforded no evidence to go to the jury of such a direction, or of such an inducement: and consequently that the Judge's direction in plaintiff's favour on the second count was right. [S. C. 20 L. J. Q. B. 270; 15 Jur. 987. Distinguished and approved, floods v. Thiedemann, 1862, 1 H. & C. 491. Adopted, Halifax Union v. Wheelwright, 1875, L. R. 10 Ex. 191. Discussed, Arnold v. Cheque Bank, 1876, 1 C. P. D. 587. See Bank of England v. Fagliano, 1888-91, 22 Q. B. D. 116; 23 Q. B. D. 254; [1891] A. C. 107 ; Scholfield v. Lmdesbarmtgh, [1895] 1 Q. B. 543; [1896] A. C. 536.] Asaumpsit. The first count of the declaration stated : that the defendants below, (c) Reported by H. Davidson, Esq. 18 Q. B. 681. ROBARTS V. TUCKER 995 plaintiffs in [661] error, before and at the time of the promise next after mentioned, were bankers, and carried on the trade and business of bankers; and thereupon, to wit on 1st January 1830, in consideration that the said company at the request of defendants would retain and employ defendants as the bankers of the company, and would lend, pay and advance to defendants divers moneys of the company, defendants undertook and promised the company to act as and be the bankers of the company, and, to the extent of such moneys as should be so lent, paid and advanced to defendants aa aforesaid by the company, to pay, to the lawful holders thereof, all such bills of exchange as should be accepted by the company, or by the trustees, or any two of them, of the said company, as such trustees, payable at the banking house and place of business of defendants, and all such cheques and drafts as should be drawn by the company on defendants, and not to pay any such bill of exchange, cheque or draft aa aforesaid to any person or persons not the lawful holder or holders thereof and entitled and able to receive payment of and give a discharge for the same respectively ; and also to keep and render just and faithful accounts to and with the company, and to debit and charge the company only with such bills of exchange, drafts and cheques so accepted by the company or the trustees thereof, or any two, &c., payable at the said banking house and place of business of defendants as aforesaid, and so drawn on them, the defendants, by the company as aforesaid respectively, as should be paid by the defendants to the lawful holder or holders thereof respectively. Averment, that the company, confiding, &c., did afterwards, to wit on, &c., and from thence continually until the commencement of this suit, [562] retain and employ defendants as the bankers of them the company, and did then, and on divers days and times between that day and 1st January 1847, lend, pay and advance to defendants divers moneys of them the company, to wit to the amount of 100,0001.: yet defendants, not regarding, &c., afterwards, to wit on 16th January 1840, then having moneys so lent, paid and advanced by the company as aforesaid sufficient in that behalf, to wit to the amount of 20,0001., wrongfully and unjustly paid to certain persons, to wit Messrs. Jones, Loyd and Co., then not being the lawful holders thereof and entitled and able to receive payment thereof and give a discharge for the same, a certain bill of exchange theretofore accepted by two of the trustees of the said company as such trustees payable at the banking house and place of business of the defendants; to wit a bill of exchange for 50001., dated 20th December 1839, drawn by one William James Tate on and addressed to the trustees of the said company by the description of the Trustees of the Pelican Life Office, London, payable seven days after sight to Elizabeth Isherwood widow, Miriam Isherwood spinster, &c. (other payees were named), or order, and (to wit on 6th January 1840) accepted for the said trustees by John Petty Muapratt and William Stanley Clarke, two of the said trustees of the said company, as such trustees, payable at the said banking house and place of business of the defendants, and whereof the said E. Isherwood, &c. (the payees before named) were then the lawful holders. And...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Commonwealth Trading Bank of Australia v Sydney Wide Stores Pty Ltd
- Nichol v Godts
-
The Godfather v Commissioner for Inland Revenue
...of them. It would be out of the question for a banker to adopt B the supposition made by one of the learned Judges in Robarts v Tucker (16 QB 560), and defer payment until satisfied by inquiry and investigation that all the indorsements on the bill are genuine. That is hardly a practical su......
-
The Godfather v Commissioner for Inland Revenue
...of them. It would be out of the question for a banker to adopt B the supposition made by one of the learned Judges in Robarts v Tucker (16 QB 560), and defer payment until satisfied by inquiry and investigation that all the indorsements on the bill are genuine. That is hardly a practical su......