Eyles v Ellis
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 May 1827 |
| Date | 07 May 1827 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 130 E.R. 710
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, AND OTHER COURTS
S. C. 12 Moore, 306; 5 L. J. c. P. (O. S.) 110. Adopted, In re Land Development Association, Kents' case, 1888, 39 Ch. D. 271.
eyles v. ellis. May 7, 1827. [S. C. 12 Moore, 306; 5 L. J. C. P. (O. S.) 110. Adopted, In re Land Development Association, Rents' case, 1888, 39 Ch. D. 271.] The Plaintiff, in October, authorized Defendant to pay in at certain bankers money due from the Defendant. Owing to a mistake it was not then paid; but Defendant, who kept an account with the same bankers, transferred the sum to the Plaintiff's credit on Friday the 9th of December.-The Plaintiff being at a distance, did not receive notice of this transfer till the Sunday following, and on the Saturday the bankers failed:-Held, that this was a sufficient payment by the Defendant. Covenant for rent due from the Defendant to the Plaintiff. At the trial before Onslow Serjt., laat Kent assizes, the Defendant put in the Plaintiffs receipt for the amount claimed. The Plaintiff then shewed that he had given the receipt, upon hearing from the Defendant that he had paid the amount to the Plaintiffs banker at Maidstone, to whom the Defendant tad, in October 1825, been requested by the Plaintiff to pay it. The Defendant, who kept an account with the same banker, ordered the amount to be transferred from his account to the Plaintiffs credit: it was discovered, however, that owing to some mistake this had not been done at the time when the Plaintiffs receipt came to the Defendant's hands; [113] but upon the Plaintiff's complaining, the Defendant, on the 8th of December, ordered the mistake to be rectified, and on Friday, the 9th of December, addressed a letter to the Plaintiff, announcing that the mistake had been rectified: this letter the Plaintiff, being at a distance, did not get till the ensuing Sunday. In the interval the bankers failed, and never opened their bank after the Saturday. The transfer in the banker's books, from the Defendant's account to the Plaintiffs, appeared to have been made on the 8tb, at which time the Defendant's account was overdrawn about 9001. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Zim Israel Navigation Company Ltd v Effy Shipping Corporation (Effy)
-
Commissioners of Customs and Excise v FDR Ltd
...Private Hospital Ltd TAX[1997] BTC 5140 Card Protection Plan Ltd v C & E Commrs TAX(Case C-349/96) [1999] BTC 5121 Eyles v Ellis ENR(1827) 4 Bing 112 Libyan Arab Foreign Bank v Bankers Trust ELR[1989] QB 728 Momm (t/a Delbrueck & Co) v Barclays Bank International LtdELR[1977] QB 790 Spareka......
-
Minsham Properties Ltd v Price (Inspector of Taxes) ; Lysville Ltd v Same
...Cairns v MacDiarmid (HMIT) TAXTAX(1982) 56 TC 556; [1983] BTC 188 Corinthian Securities Ltd v Cato TAX(1969) 46 TC 93 Eyles v Ellis ENR(1827) 4 Bing 112 Garforth (HMIT) v Newsmith Stainless Ltd TAX(1978) 52 TC 522 IR Commrs v Doncaster TAX(1924) 8 TC 623 IR Commrs v Holder TAX(1931) 16 TC 5......
-
Tayeb v HSBC Bank Plc and another
...for the bank's decision whether to reverse an entry was the close of banking business on the first day. He concluded by reference to Eyles v. Ellis (1827) 4 Bing. 112, a decision of the Court of Common Pleas, that an account could be held to be effectively credited if the bank's book entrie......