Bell v The London and North-Western Railway Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 April 1852 |
| Date | 19 April 1852 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 51 E.R. 651
ROLLS COURT
[548] bell v. the london and north-western railway company. March 19, 20, April 19, 1852. A debt or other chose in action may be assigned in equity without any concurrence on the part of the debtor. A railway contractor gave his bankers a letter directing the railway company to pass the cheques which might become due to him "to his account with the bank." Held, that this was not an equitable assignment, but that it would have been if it had directed the cheques to be passed to the bank. As to the authority of a secretary of a railway company to bind the company by an admission. In this case Mr. R. Palmer and Mr. Cairns appeared for the bank. Mr. Roupell and Mr. Speed, for the railway company. Mr. Swanston and Mr. Tennant, for the assignees. [549] The following cases were cited: - Gardner v. Luchlan (4 Myl. & Cr. 129); Burn v. Cm-valho (Ib. 690) ; Lett v. Morris (4 Sim. 607) ; Tibhits v. Gem-ge (5 Ad. & E. 107) ; Smith v. Smith (2 C. & M. 231) ; Ex parts Smith (3 Swan. 392) ; Raw v. Daivsm 1 Ves. sen. 331) ; Watson v. The Luke of Wellington (1 R. & M. 602). the master of the rolls reserved judgment. Ap-ril 19. the master of the rolls [Sir John Romilly]. The Plaintiff, in this case, is the public officer of the National Provincial Bank of England, suing on behalf of that company the London and North-Western Railway Company. The object of the suit is to make the railway company account to the bank for sums of money alleged to have been improperly paid to Thomas Burton by the railway company under a contract, all payments under which had been previously assigned by Thomas Burton to the bank. On the 12th of December 1846 Thomas Burton entered into a contract with the railway company for the construction of a portion of the line of the railway leading from Rugby to Peterborough and Stamford. The terms of the contract, as is usual in these cases, are very special ; and these have been much commented upon, with relation to the items of the account between Thomas Burton and the railway company, which are complained of by the bank and justified by the railway company; but these provisions in the contract arc material only with reference to these items, and need not, in this place, be more particularly referred to. [550] In March 1847 Thomas Burton applied to the bank, and requested them to furnish him with an advance of money for the purpose of enabling him to carry his contract into effect ; and, accordingly, an agreement was come to between the bank and Thomas Burton, by which they agreed to open an account with him, and to allow him a. credit of 4000 on that account, as soon as he gave an order to the 652 BELL V. LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RLY. CO. IS BEAV. mi. railway company to pay to the bank all monies which might become payable on account of their contract, to be placed by the bank to the credit of Thomas Burton, and they were to charge him with interest on the balances from time to time due from him to the bank. On the 29th of March 1847 Thomas Burton gave an order to the railway company to pay the monies due to him on this contract to the bank, the terms of which I shall have to notice presently. On the 30th of March 1847 the bank sent this order to the railway company, with a request that the receipt of it might be acknowledged, which was accordingly done by Mr. Walker, the secretary of the company, on the 31st of March, being the-following day. In the same month, and a few days previously to these letters being written, Thomas Burton entered into a second contract with the railway company for constructing another...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Siebe Gorman & Company Ltd v Barclays Bank Ltd
- Singapore Engineers Ltd; United Overseas Bank Ltd
-
United Overseas Bank Ltd v Singapore Engineers Ltd
...to the company which the company wished to discharge: at [12] and [13]. Bell v The London and North-Western Railway Co (1852) 15 Beav 548; 51 ER 651 (refd) Crowfoot v W B Gurney (1832) 9 Bing 372; 131 ER 655 (refd) Holt v Heatherfield Trust Ltd [1942] 2 KB 1; [1942] 1 All ER 404 (refd) Will......
-
Holroyd v Griffiths
...Thomas, [433] even without our assent; but we did assent and act upon the order; Bell v. London and North-Western Eailway Company (15 Beav. 548); Rodick v. Gandell (1 De G. M'N. & Gord. 763). Mr. Glasse and Mr. Cairns, fOr Briggs & Co. If the Court is of opinion that Holroyd's claim fails a......