G. Simson, R Stephenson, and Thomas Freen against Benjamin Ingham, the Heir of one Joshua Ingham, Deceased, and the said Benjamin Ingham, Joshua Ingham, James Taylor Ingham, and Others, Devisees of the said Joshua Ingham, Deceased
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 June 1823 |
| Date | 10 June 1823 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 107 E.R. 307
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 3 D. & R. 249; 1 L. J. K. B. O. S. 234. Adopted, Royal Bank of Scotland v. Christie, 1841, 8 Cl. & F. 228; Siebel v. Springfield, 1863, 9 L. T. 325; City Discount Company v. M'Lean, 1874, L. R. 9 C. P. 700; Hooper v. Keay, 1875, 1 Q. B. D. 181; Prince v. Oriental Bank, 1878, 3 App. Cas. 332; Friend v. Young, [1897] 2 Ch. 437; Smith v. Betty, [1903] 2 K. B. 324. Commented on, Seymour v. Pickett, [1905] 1 K. B. 722.
[65] G. simson, R. stephenson, and thomas fkeen against benjamin ingham, the Heir of one Joshua Ingham, Deceased, and the said benjamin ingham/ joshua ingham, james taylor ingham, and others, Devisees of the said Joshua Ingham, Deceased. Tuesday, June 10th, 1823. A bond was given by country bankers to the several persons constituting the firm of a London banking-house, conditioned for remitting money to provide for bills, and for the repayment of such sums as the London bankers might advance on account of persons constituting the firm of the country banking-house, or any of them, associated or not with other persons. One of the partners in the country bank died, a considerable balance being then due to the London bankers. It was the course of business between the two houses for the London bankers to send in to the country bankers monthly accounts of receipts and payments. In the month following the death of the deceased partner, the London bankers received sums in payment more than sufficient to discharge the balance then due; but during the same time they advanced money on account of the country bankers to an equal amount. In the'first instance the London bankers entered in their books all receipts and payments made after the death of the deceased partner to the account of the old firm, but they did not transmit any account to the country bankers until two months after the death of the deceased partner, and then they transmitted two distinct accounts; one the account of the old firm, made up to the day of the death of the partner; and another, a new account, containing all payments and receipts subsequent to that time: Held, that the entries in the books of the London bankers did not amount to a complete appropriation by them of the several payments to the old account, such appropriation not being complete until it was communicated to the party to be affected by it; and therefore that the London bankers, notwithstanding those entries, were entitled to apply the payments received subsequently to the death of the deceased partner to the debt of the new firm. [S. C. 3 D. & R. 249; 1 L. J. K. B. 0. S. 234. Adopted, Royal Bank of Scotland v. Christie, 1841, 8 Cl. & F. 228; Siebel v. Springfield, 1863, 9 L. T. 325; City Discount Company v. M'Lean, 1874, L. R. 9 C. P. 700; Hooper v. Keay, 1875, 1 Q. B. D. 181; Prince v. Oriental Bank, 1878, 3 App. Cas. 332; Friend v. Young, [1897] 2 Ch. 437 ; Smith v. Betty, [1903] 2 K. B. 324. Commented on, Seymour v. PicJcett, [1905] 1 K. B. 722.] This was an action against the defendants, as heirs and devisees of Benjamin Ingham deceased, on a bond, bearing date the 19th October, 1808; whereby Benjamin, and Joshua Ingham, since deceased, therein described as late of Hudders-field, bankers, became bound in the penal sum of 20,0001., to one P. C. Bruce, and the three plaintiffs, Simson, Stephenson, and Freen, therein described as bankers in London, carrying on business under the firm of Were Bruce, Simson, and Co. The condition of the bond was, that B. and J. Ingham should well and truly remit and pay to the said P. C. Bruce, Simson, Stephenson, and Freen, or any of them, associated or not with any other person or persons in [66] the same or any firm, the amount of all such sums as B. and J. Ingham, or either of them, associated with any other person or persons or not, should draw on the said Bruce, Simson, Stephenson, and Freen, or any of theni; associated or not as aforesaid, or make payable at their house, as the said bills or notes should become respectively due. There then followed other clauses, usual in such bonds, for payment of all monies paid, laid out, and 308 SIMSON V. INGHAM 2 B. & C. 67. expended by the London bankers, on account of the country bankers, or due...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lord Arlington v Merricke
...latter rule, however, is applicable only to accounts current, and even then it is not conclusive, but only evidence of an appropriation ; 2 B. & C. 65, Simpson v. Ingham. 3 D. & E. 249, S. C. 2 Dowl. 511, Chitty v. Naish. 3 B. & Ad. 320, 333, Taylor v. Kymer. 4 fl. & Ad. 760, 767, Wilson v.......
-
Nash v Hodgson
...Institutes, Sup. 940, ed. 1831; Smith's Leading Cases, ed. 3, vol. i. p. 321 b. (note to IVTiitcomb v. JVTiiting); Simsan v. Ingham (2 B. & C. 65), PUlpott v. Jones (2 A. & E. 41), and Cleave v. Jane* (6 Exch. Rep. 573) overruling Willis v. Newham (3 Y. & J. 518). Mr. Willcock (Mr. Shebbear......
-
Wythes v Labouchere
...& Bl. 46); Pooley v. Harradine (1 Ell. & Bl. 431); Amott v. Holden (18 Q. B. 593); Bodenham v. Purchas (2 B. & Aid. 39); Simson v. Ingham (2 B. & C. 65); Newmarch v. Clay (14 East, 239); Williams v. Rawlinson (3 Bing. 71); Clayton's case 1 Mer. 605). Judgment reserved. Jan. 31. the lord cha......
-
Lees v Laforest
...v. Toulnin (7 Cl. & Fin. 349 ; and see Bodenham v. Purchas, 2 Barn. & Aid. 39 ; Pe?nberton v. Oakes, 4 Russ. 154; Simson v. Ingham, 2 B. & C. 65). Secondly. The Defendants are personally liable to pay the Plaintiff his full share of the old debt, in consequence of the mode in which they, wi......