Crerar v Bank of Scotland
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 May 1922 |
| Docket Number | No. 13. |
| Date | 23 May 1922 |
| Court | House of Lords |
Viscount Haldane, Viscount Finlay, Viscount Cave, Ld. Dunedin, Ld. Wrenbury.
Bank—Right in Security—Secured loan account—Transfer of shares by customer in security of advances—Right of customer to re-delivery of identical shares—Identity of shares not preserved—Tender by bank of equal quantity of same shares—Course of dealing—Acquiescence of customer—Personal Bar.
A bank was in the habit of providing financial accommodation for its customers by means of secured loan accounts. The practice with regard to these accounts was that shares were transferred in security by the customer to the bank's nominees and were registered in their names; that no evidence of the identity of the particular shares so transferred was preserved; that the customer was credited in the bank's books merely with a certain quantity of shares in the aggregate block of shares of that particular denomination held by the bank in respect of advances to its various customers; and that, when shares were retransferred to the customer, a quantity corresponding to the quantity transferred was retransferred, but not the identical shares.
A customer of the bank, who had a secured loan account with the bank which was operated upon in accordance with this practice, brought an action in the Sheriff Court against the bank for an accounting relative to its intromissions with her shares, and averred that the bank had sold her shares without her authority, in breach of their obligation to retain the specific shares (unless realised for reduction of the loan) and to retransfer the identical shares on repayment of the loan.
On appeal, the First Division found in fact that, in the transactions referred to, the defenders acted according to their usual practice, which was known to and approved by the firm of stockbrokers whom the pursuer had employed as her agents in the transactions; and held in law that she was, accordingly, barred from insisting in the action.
The House of Lords in view of the above finding in fact (which, under sec. 40 of the Court of Session Act, 1825, was not appealable) affirmedthe judgment of the First Division.
(In the Court of Session, 18th June 1921–1921 S. C. 736.)
The pursuer appealed to the House of Lords.
The appeal was heard on 23rd May 1922.
Argued for the appellant;—The appellant admitted that she had no case where the transactions were carried through by delivery orders, but with regard to the transactions where...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
CPIT Investments Ltd v Qilin World Capital Ltd and another
...same description from the market would not amount to sufficient performance by the mortgagee. It refers to Crerar v Bank of Scotland (1922) SC (HL) 137 at 138. Qilin says that there is nothing in the Loan Agreement or the Control Agreement which provides for this. CPIT’s In response to Qili......