De La Chaumette v Bank of England
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 May 1831 |
| Date | 06 May 1831 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 109 E.R. 1186
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 9 L. J. K. B. O. S. 239.
de la chaumette against the bank of england (a)2. Friday, May 6th, 1831. A promissory note payable to the bearer, made in England, is by the statute of 3 & 4 Anne, e. 9, transferable by delivery in a foreign country. [S. C. 9 L. J. K. B. O. S. 239.] Trover for a bank note. Plea, not guilty. At the trial before Lord Tenterden C.J., at the London sittings after Michaelmas term 1829, the jury found a special verdict, setting out the following facts :-One George Haselton, on the 28th of February 1826, was lawfully possessed of the bank note in the declaration mentioned ; and whilst he was so possessed thereof, some person or persons to the jurors unknown, on the day and year last aforesaid, feloniously stole, took, and carried away the same from the said George Haselton. The said Bank of England note afterwards was in the hands of M. Emerigue, a money changer of respectability, and of great business at Paris, in the kingdom of France. Messrs. Odier and [386] Co., bankers at Paris, being desirous of making a remittance of English money from Paris to the plaintiff, L. A. De la Chaumette, (who then resided and carried on the trade of a merchant in London, and to whom Odier and Co. were then indebted in respect of transactions in business between them, in the sum of 17001.) afterwards, on the 21st day of May 1827, purchased from the said M. Emerigue for that purpose, among other English money, the said bank note, in the usual course of business, and for a valuable consideration, computed at the then rate of exchange between Paris and London. Odier and Co. afterwards, on the 22d day of May in the same year, in the regular course of business, remitted, on the general account, the sum of 10081. in English money and bank notes, whereof the bank note, so purchased as aforesaid, was one, from Paris to L. A. De la Chaumette, then being in London, who received into possession the last-mentioned Bank of England note, and retained the same in his possession from thence continually, until and at the time of the conversion and disposal of the same, hereafter mentioned. At the respective times of the aforesaid purchase and remittance it was the practice for persons travelling from this country into France to take, for the purpose of paying their expenses, bank notes; and for persons residing or domiciled in France to receive the same in payment. At the respective times of the aforesaid purchase and remittance, it was also the usual practice in Paris for bankers or other persons to make remittances from Paris to persons residing in England, in English money and bank notes; and for the purpose of making such remittances, to purchase of the money changers in Paris, at the rate of exchange between Paris and London for [387] the time being, English money and bank notes. After the bank note in the declaration mentioned had been so remitted as aforesaid, and the said L. A. De la Chaumette had thereupon become possessed of the same in manner aforesaid, the said governor and company, at the request and instance of the said George Haselton, converted and disposed of the same to their own use. (a)1 Patteson J., having been counsel in the cause, gave no opinion. (a)2 See the former case between the same parties, 9 B. & C. 208. 2B.&AD.388. DE LA CHAUMETTE V. THE BANK OF ENGLAND 1187 The ease was now argued by Platt for the plaintiff. The general rule as to a bill or note assignable by delivery, and lost by theft or accident, is, that the thief or finder may confer a title by transferring it (though if it be assignable by indorsement he cannot); Miller v. Race (1 Burr. 452), Grant v. Praughan(3 Burr. 1516), Peacock v. Rhodes (Doug. 611): and the transferree has a good title to it, provided it came into his possession bona fide, and for a valuable consideration. Here it is found that Odier and Co. took the promissory note in the ordinary course of transfer. [Parke J. It is not found that the promissory note was transferred in France.] That is not disputed. (He was then stopped by the Court.) Follett contra. The rule relied upon applies to negotiable instruments. If this was a negotiable instrument in France, and the plaintiff gave value for it, he might sue on it, notwithstanding the fact of its having been stolen. If it was not a negotiable instrument there, but a mere chattel or security, like a bond or note not negotiable, no property passed by the delivery, but it remains in Haselton, from whom it was stolen, because the property in such [388] a chattel is not altered, except by sale in market overt. Now a promissory note is not negotiable by the custom of merchants, but was made so in this country by the statute 3 & 4 Anne, c. 9. The question here is not, whether that statute applies to render notes made in a foreign country trans ferable in England when indorsed in this country, as in Milne v. Graham (1 B. & C. 192), Bentley v. Northouse(l M. & M. 66); but whether a promissory note made in this country and indorsed or delivered abroad passes by such indorsement or delivery. Before the Statute of Anne, a promissory note was only evidence of a debt, and not a negotiable security, Buller v. Cripps (6 Mod. 29). It was not transferable by indorsement or delivery. The preamble of the Statute of Anne shews that that was the state of the law. That statute makes promissory notes negotiable in England, in the same manner as inland bills of exchange. It therefore makes them transferable by indorsement in England; but in France, or any other country, a promissory note would continue what it was before the statute, a mere chattel. In Gdrr v. Shaw (B. E. H. 39 G-. 3, Bayley on Bills, 5th ed. p. 26), the Court intimated a strong opinion that the statute did not apply to foreign bills. In Milne v. Graham (1 B. & C. 192), and in Bentley v. Northouse (1 M. & M. 66), a foreign note was held to be negoti able in England by indorsement, because the statute made all promissory notes transferable in England. But the Act did not, and could not, make them transferable in a foreign country. It is not found what the law of France is; and, in the absence of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gay and Another v Lander
...correct one. The authorities that were relied on for the defendant in Flight v. Maclean, were, De La Chaumette v. The Bank of England (9 B. & C. 208), upon the first point, and Clwmpian v. Plummet (1 N. K. 253), Cooper v. Smith (15 East, 103), and Green v. Davis (4 B. & C. 235, 5 D. & R. 30......
-
Holl v Griffin and Another
...upon an advance of money by the Plaintiff, handed over to him the Stockton wharfinger's (d)' See De La Chaumette v. Bank of England, 9 B. & C. 208, 2 B. & Adol. 385, Down v. Hailing, 4 B. & C. 330. 10BING. 247. HOLL V. GRIFFIN 899 receipt for these goods, together with the invoice; and at t......
-
Russell v Kitchen
...HarrendenENR 4 T. R. 148. Bentley v. Northhouse M. & Mal. 66. Carr v. Shaw B. R. Hil. 39 G. 3. De La Chaumette v. The Bank of EnglandENR 2 B. & Ad. 385. Trimbey v. VignierENR 1 Bing. N. C. 151. Brown v. Gracey 1 D. & R., N. P. Cas, 41 n. COMMON LAW REPORTS. 613 H. T. 1854. Queen's Benehs, R......
-
Bentley v Hastings
...340. Breverton's case Dyer. 30. d. Rex v. TwineENR Cro. Jac. 179. Short v. HubbarENR 2 Bing. 359. De La Chaumotte v. Bank of EnglandENR 2 B. & Ad. 385. Earl of Shaftsbury v. RussellENR 1 B. & C. 671. Stanley v. WhartonENR 9 Price, 303. Roe v. Darley 1 H. & B. 445. Cornforth v. Lowcock 1 M. ......