Glyn, Bart. and Another against Baker
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 May 1811 |
| Date | 21 May 1811 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 104 E.R. 468
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
Referred to, Crouch v. Credit Foncier, 1873, L. R. 8 Q. B. 383; Goodwin v. Robarts, 1875-76, L. R. 10 Ex. 341; 1 App. Cas. 476.
glyn, bart. and another against baker. Tuesday, May 21st, 1811. The plaintiffs and the defendant having each lodged their respective Indian bonds with the same bankers, who afterwards privily and without the defendant's authority sold his bonds, and upon his demand of them delivered up to him the Indian bonds of the plaintiffs to the same total amount, and payable to the same obligee (being always the treasurer of the Company, who indorses such bonds in blank before they are circulated), but having different numbers and for different separate sums, and therefore manifestly .distinguishable from his own bonds; though the defendant did hot know that they we.re the property of another, but was told by the bankers that they had exchanged his original bonds for these: Held that the defendant having sold the plaintiffs' bonds so received from his own agents, who had acted mala fide in passing them to him, was liable to answer over to the plaintiffs for the amount, in an action of assumpsit for money had and received to their use. [Referred to, Crouch v. Credit Fonder, 1873, L. R. 8 Q. B. 383; Goodwin v. Robarts, 1875-76, L. R. 10 Ex. 341; 1 App. Cas. 476.] The plaintiffs brought assumpsit for money had and received by the defendant to their use, as treasurers of the [510] Globe Insurance Company; and at the trial before Lord Ellenborough, C.J. at Guildhall, a verdict was found for the plaintiffs for 30961. 18s. 9d., subject to the opinion of the Court on this case : Devaynes and Co. were bankers in London, with whom the Globe Insurance Company banked, and were likewise in the habit of depositing securities for safe custody only. On the 28th of April and the 9th of June 1808, the company gave (a) 2 Bos. & Pull. 363, 13 EAST, 511. GLYN V. BAKER 469 orders to D&vaynes and Co. to purchase India bonds for them, which Devaynes and Co. accordingly did to the amount of 17,0001., through the medium of brokers, whose notes of the numbers and other particulars of the bonds so purchased were handed over to the company, to shew that the order was executed ; but the bonds themselves remained in the hands of Devaynes and Go. to be kept till the company might call for them. Among these bonds were five of the following amount, date, and numbers : F. 420, dated 31st March 1810 for 10001. G. 221, 358, 545, 625, of the same date, each for 5001. Devaynes and Co. had in August and October 1808 purchased for the defendant, (who also banked with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Forth and Others v Stanton, Widow
...coynovit, may sue here in his own name. 3 Taunt. 82, O'Callaghan v. Marchioncxs Thomond. The assignee of an India bond formerly could not; 13 East, 509, Gli/n v. Baker ; but now he may by stat. 51 Goo. 3, c. 64, s. 4. The assignee of an India certificate cannot; 16 Ves. 443, Williamson v. T......
-
Lewis v Campbell
...here. The amount would be recoverable also under the count for money had and received: Andrew v. Robinson (3 Campb, 199); Glyn v. Baker (13 East, 509). [Wilde, C. J., referred to Hmell v. Batt (5 B. & Ad. 504, 2 N. & M. 381).] Byles, Serjt., and A. Pollock, in support of the rule. Money pai......
-
Gorgier against Mieville and Another
...& Pul. 648), Wookey v. Pole (4 Barn. & A. 1). The Attorney-General and D. F. Jones, contra. This case falls rather within Glyn v. Baker (13 East, 509), in which it was held, that the property in an India bond did not pass by delivery. The principal ground upon which bank notes, bills of exc......
-
Lang v Smyth
...Here it was proved that the bordereaux and coupons were never sold without the certificate, and the case rather resembles Glyn v. Baker (13 East, 509), where it was held that property in India bonds did not pass by delivery, because there was no proof that they were negotiable, and no perso......