Edwards v Glyn
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 June 1859 |
| Date | 10 June 1859 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 121 E.R. 12
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, AND THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
[29] edwards and others, Assignees of W. C. Oak and C. H. Snow, Bankrupts, against glyn and others. Friday, June 10th, 1859. O. & S., bankers at B., being in want of funds to meet an expected run upon their bank, obtained from some friends a written guarantie for 30001., upon the strength of which defendants, bankers in London, advanced to 0. & S. 30001. The guarantie, S. stated in evidence, was signed by the sureties on the understanding with O, & S. that the money should be returned if they found themselves, notwithstanding the advance, unable to meet the run. Defendants knew nothing of this understanding. S. having received from defendants at London the 30001. in notes and gold, in a box, took the money down to B., and saw 0., his partner; and, finding that it was impossible to meet the run, 0. & S. discussed the propriety of returning the money. While discussing it they received a letter from F., one of the sureties, aaying that, as the case was hopeless, O. & S. could not honourably retain the money, and that it ought to be returned : and F. afterwards, in an interview, again urged upon them the return of the money. S., in evidence, stated that this letter and the subsequent application from F. operated upon their minds in coming to the conclusion to return the money. The box containing the money was returned to the defendants unopened : 0. & S. suspended payment the next day, and afterwards became bankrupts.-In an action by the assignees of O. & S. to recover from the defendants the 30001.;-Held (on a special case stating the facts), that 0. & S., in returning the money, were influenced not solely by their own wish, but also by the application from the surety : and that therefore the return of the money was not purely voluntary, and did not amount to a fraudulent preference.-Held also, by Erie and Crompton Js., that the 30001. was advanced on the specific understanding, and clothed with the specific trust, that it should be returned if the run could not be met; that, as the purpose for which it was advanced had failed, 0. & S. had only a legal, and not also an equitable, title to the money : and that therefore the interest in such money did not pass to their assignees. [S. C. 28 L. J. Q. B. 350. Principle approved, Exparte Tempest, 1870, L. R. 10 Eq. 655; L. R. 6 Ch. 75.] Action for money payable by defendants to plaintiffs, as assignees as aforesaid ; for money received by defendants to the use of plaintiffs, as assignees as aforesaid : and also for that defendants, after the said bankrupts became bankrupts, converted to their own use and deprived plaintiffs of the possession of divers notes and coin of plaintiffs, as assignees as aforesaid : and also for that defendants, before the said bankrupts became bankrupts, converted to their owti use and deprived the said bankrupts of the possession of divers notes and coin of the said bankrupts as aforesaid. Fleas. 1. That plaintiffs were not such assignees as alleged. 2. To the first [30] count, that defendants never were indebted as alleged. 3. To the second and third counts, Not guilty. 4. To the second count, that the said notes and coin were not the plaintiffs' as such assignees as alleged. 5. To the third count, that the said notes and coin were not the said bankrupts' as alleged. Issue on all the pleas. (a) See Rules of Practice, Hilary, 1853, No. 63. ZELfcELSL EDWARDS V. GLYN 13 The cause came on to be tried at the Sittings for London after Hilary Terra, 1859, before Lord Campbell C.J., when a verdict was found for the plaintiffs for 30001., subject to the opinion of the Court on a special case, which was substantially as follows. The bankrupts, Messrs. Oak & Snow, carried an the business of bankers, under the firm of Oak & Snow, at Blandford, in the county of Dorset. The defendants carried on the business of bankers in Lombard Street, London, under the firm of Glyn, Mills & Co., and in that capacity acted as the London agents for the banking establishment of the bankrupts at Blandford. At the trial of the cause, the bankrupt, C. H. Snow, waa called on behalf of the plaintiffs. It was agreed that the facts of the case were to be taken to be those therein specifically set forth, and also such as the Court placing themselves in the situation of a jury, should think fit to infer therefrom, and from the evidence given by the said witness arid documentary evidence as hereinafter set forth, subject to the objection, if valid, of the admissibility in evidence of the statement alleged by the said witness, in his cross examination, to have been made by him to the guarantors at the time of their respectively signing the guarantie mentioned in his examination : and also of the admissibility in evidence of the contents of a letter alleged by the said witness, in his cross-examination, to have been received by him from Mr. Farqnharson on [31] the night of 12th February, 1858, and of all evidence relating thereto respectively ; and which statement and letter, and all evidence in thft said examination relating thereto respectively, were, if not admissible, to be considered as thrown out of the case. The said witness, C. H. Snow, on his examination in chief, stated as follows. " W. C. Oak and I carried on the business of bankers at Blandford in copartnership, under the firm of Oak & Snow, from 1848, and the defendants were our London agents. For some time before and in February, 1858, we had, as customers of our bank, a firm carrying on business at Blandford under the name of Barnes & Sons; and, in February, 1858, Barnes & Sons stopped payment, being indebted to our firm at that time in about 11,0001. In consequence of the failure of Barnes & Sons there was a run upon our bank, and moneys were not paid in as usual to the credit of accounts, and the resources of the bank were cramped in consequence. About the time of the failure of Barnes & Sons our firm was also indebted and otherwise liable to the defendants, on our agency account, to a considerable amount: and, on 7th February, 1858, our firm received by post the following letter from the defendants. " 'Lombard Street, Feb. 6, 1858. " 'Dear Sirs,-Your general account this day is 33001., Dr, which includes 30001. of Barnes, Cr. Also we hold under discount several of their bills. This state of things being by no means satisfactory to us, we have to request you will, without delay, remit us further ample security.-We remain, dear Sirs, Your very obedt. Serrts., "'GLYN, mills & Co.' " ' To Messrs. Oak & Snow. (Private).' [&2] "On 9th February, 1858, our firm received by post the following letter from the defendants. " ' London, Feb. 8th, 1858. " 'Dear Sirs,-We are surprised to have no intimation from you upon the subject of Messrs. Barnes & Co.'s affairs. We wrote you on the 6th, and shall hope tomorrow to bear from you as to security or guarantie for any balance of account which may be due to us. The position which your account has assumed in consequence of Barnes & Sons' failure renders it our painful duty to state that we must decline, unless upon satisfactory securities, to increase the advance upon your account.-We remain, dear Sirs, faithfully, " ' P. glyn, mills & Co.' "On 8th February, 1858, our firm sent the following letter by post to the defendants. " 'Blandford, 8th February, 1858. '"Gentlemen,-We will attend to your request as quickly as possible, but we have been a great deal inconvenienced by the return of Barnes's wool bills on Smith & Hubbard. We had hoped to have waited for a better price far The Chester and Holy head, The North British and Aberdeen, iu your Mr. George G. Glyn's uame; 14 EDWARDS V. GLYN S EL. ft EL. 33. but we will now thank you to sell them at the best price you can for money, and credit our account therewith.-We remain, Gentlemen, your obedt, Servts., "' Messrs. Glyn & Co. (Signed) " ' oak & snow.' "On 9th February, 1858, our firm sent the following letter by post to the defendants. '"Blandford, 9th Feb., 1858. " 'Gentlemen,-We regret your inquiry respecting Barnes & Sons' acceptances to Smith should have remained unanswered [33] by Saturday's post, but we had some difficulty in ascertaining the true position of them. We presume, however, the answer which we wrote you yesterday will explain. "' The two remaining notes of...
To continue reading
Request your trial