Crosskill v Bower Bower v Turner
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 February 1863 |
| Date | 11 February 1863 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 55 E.R. 34
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 32 L. J. Ch. 540; 8 L. T. 135; 9 Jur. (N. S.) 267; 11 W. R. 411. See Barfield v. Loughborough, 1872, L. R. 8 Ch. 7, Daniell v. Sinclair, 1881, 6 App. Cas. 184.
[86] crosskill v. bower. bower v. turner. Jan. 26, Feb. 11, 1863. [S. C. 32 L. J. Ch. 540; 8 L. T. 135; 9 Jur. (N. S.) 267; 11 W. R. 411. See Barfield v. Loughborough, 1872, L. R. 8 Ch. 7, Daniell v. Sinclair, 1881, 6 App. Gas. 184.] Where the account between a banker and his customer is kept at compound interest, and the customer dies, the final balance at his death, in the absence of contract, carries no interest. It is the same where the balance is in the customer's favor, and the banker dies, or ceases to carry on business, or becomes bankrupt. A bankers' account was kept at compound interest. In 1847 the customer gave the bankers a security for all moneys then due or thereafter to become due, " with interest for the same after the rate of 5 for every 100 by the year." In 1855 the customer assigned all his estate to trustees for the benefit of his creditor, and his banking account ceased. Held that, under this security, the bankers were entitled to compound interest down to the date of the creditors' deed, but to simple interest only afterwards. The rule of the Court is imperative, that, in the absence of any contract for that purpose, no person can, by acting as trustees, derive any pecuniary benefit to himself. Three trustees, two of whom were bankers, were empowered to carry on a business and to borrow money " from any bankers or other persons " for that purpose. The bankers made advances of money to the trust at compound interest. Held, that, having regard to their fiduciary character, they could make no profit, and were entitled to simple interest only on their advances. These two suits, which involved similar questions, were heard together, and the Court declared one judgment only applicable to both. It appeared that, in 1847, and previously thereto, Messrs. Bower & Hall carried on the business of bankers at Beverley, at which place Mr. Crosskill carried on the business of iron founder and agricultural implement maker. Mr. Crosskill was a customer of the bankers, with whom he had two accounts, one as iron founder and the other as partner of a firm of Malams, Crosskill & Co. of Hamburgh. It was the custom of Messrs. Bower & Hall to keep their accounts with their customers at 5 per cent., making annual rests, and this mode had been followed in the accounts of Mr. Crosskill, and had been assented to by him. In 1847 both these accounts were considerably overdrawn, and on the 15th of December 1847 Mr. Crosskill conveyed his interest in some gasworks, and [87] his mill and foundry and other property, to Messrs. Bower & Hall, to hold by way of mortgage for securing the payment to the bankers of all moneys then due or thenceforth to become due to them ; in the first place, for such sum or sums as then were or thereafter should be so due from William Crosskill on his separate account, and in the next place, for such sum or sums as then were or thereafter should be so due from the firm of Malams, Crosskill & Co. on their co-partnership account, with interest for the same after the rate of 5 for every 100 by the year. The dealings between Mr. Crosskill and the bankers continued, but Mr. Crosskill having in 1852 commenced a separate business of miller, two accounts were then opened with him and the bank, viz., "the general account" and "the mill account." In January 1855 both these 'accounts were greatly overdrawn, and Mr. Crosskill executed two creditors' deeds, dated the 23d and 24th of January 1855, by which he conveyed all his real and personal estate to Messrs. Bower & Hall and Thomas Ellery Turner (their cashier), upon trust to realize and pay the expenses, and then to pay 3ZBEAV.M. CROSSKILL V. BOWER 35 the creditors of Mr. Crosskill rateably, and to pay the residue (if any) to Mr. Crosskill. The deed provided that the trustees might, "in their or his uncontrolled discretion, continue to carry on, for any length of time, either in their own names or in the name of Mr. Crosskill, or in the name or names of any other person or persons, a far as they lawfully might, as they should think best, all or any of the businesses and trades which he, Mr. Crosskill, had theretofore carried on, either at Beverley or elsewhere," &c. And also that the trustees " might, from time to time, pay all expenses incident to carrying on such trades and businesses, out of the trust [88] money and premises, or from time to time borrow at interest, and with or without any security, from, any bankers or other persons, any sums of money, which the said trustees or trustee might think proper, for the purpose of carrying on the said businesses or paying creditors, in part or in full, or for any of the purposes of the trusts or powers therein contained, and without the said trustees or trustee being, in any manner, liable or accountable for or by reason of any pecuniary or other loss or injury which might happen to Mr. Crosskill or any of his creditors thereby." On the execution of these deeds, Mr. Crosskill ceased to carry on business, and he neither paid into or drew out of the bank any other moneys, and the account was virtually closed. The trustees of the creditors' deeds, however, opened two accounts at the bank, one called the mortgage account and the other the general account, in the names of " The Trustees of William Crosskill." They carried on the mill business until 1860, and they still carried on the business of iron founders. Accounts were furnished by the trustees to Mr. Crosskill in October 1851, when it appeared that they had kept their banking...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Nadefinco Ltd; Trengganu State Economic Development Corporation
-
Financial Institutions Services Ltd v Negril Holdings et Al
...CI & An 121, [1835-42] All E.R. Rep. 48, and, in particular concerning its more positive acceptance in Crosskill v. Bower (1863) 32 Beav 86, 55 ER 34 and in the Deutsche Bank case. In my opinion, having regard to the later authorities to which I have referred and, in particular, to Panton (......
-
Financial Institutions Services Ltd v Negril Holdings and Negril Investment Company Ltd
...8 CI & Fin 121, [1835–42] All ER Rep. 48, and, in particular concerning its more positive acceptance in Croskill v Bower (1863) 32 Beav 86, 55 ER 34 and in the Deutsche Bank case. In my opinion, having regard to the later authorities to which I have referred and, in particular, to Panton (F......
-
National Bank of Greece S.A. (Appellants) v Pinios Shipping Company No. 1 and Another (Respondents)
...effect of Fergusson v. Fyffe 8 C1. & F. 121, considerable reliance appears to have been placed upon it by Sir John Romilly M.R. in Crosskill v. Bower (1863) 32 Beav. 86. A customer (Mr. Crosskill) had two accounts with his bankers, who kept their accounts at £5 per cent. per annum, making a......