Gorgier against Mieville and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 June 1824 |
| Date | 22 June 1824 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 107 E.R. 651
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 4 D. & R. 641; 2 L. J. K. B. 0. S. 206. Not applied, Crouch v. Credit Fancier of England, 1873, L. R. 8 Q. B. 384. Approved, Goodwin v. Robarts, 1876, 1 App. Cas. 490. Referred to, London and County Banking Company v. London and River Plate Bank, 1887-88, 20 Q. B. D. 238; 21 Q. B. D. 535. Applied, London Joint Stock Bank v. Simmons, [1892] A. C. 212. Referred to, Bechunaland Exploration Company v. London Trading Bank, [1898] 2 Q. B. 670.
gorgieb against mieville and another. Tuesday, June 22d, 1824. Where a foreign prince gave bonds, whereby he declared himself and his successors bound to every person who should for the time being be the holders of the bonds for the payment of the principal and interest in a certain manner: Held, that the property in those instruments passed by delivery as the property in bank notes, Exchequer bills, or bills of exchange, payable to bearer; and that, consequently, an agent in whose hands such a bond was placed for a special purpose, might confer a good title by pledging it to a person who did not know that the party pledging was not the real owner. [S. C. 4 D. & R. 641 ; 2 L. J. K. B. 0. S. 206. Not applied, Crouch v. Credit Fancier of England, 1873, L. R. 8 Q. B. 384. Approved, Goodwin v. Bobarts, 1876, 1 App. Gas. 490. Referred to, London and County Banking Company v. London and River Plate Bank, 1887-88, 20 Q. B. D. 238; 21 Q. B. D. 535. Applied, London Joint Stock Bank v. Simmons, [1892] A. C. 212. Referred to, Bechwmaland Exploration Company v. London Trading Bank, [1898] 2 Q. B. 670.] Trover for a Prussian bond. Plea, not guilty. At the trial before Abbott C.J., at the London sittings after last Michaelmas term, it appeared, that the bond in question had been deposited by the plaintiff in the hands of Messrs. Agassiz and Co., to hold for the benefit of the plaintiff, and receive the interest upon it. Agassiz and Co. being in want of money, pledged the bond to the defendants. By the bond, the King of Prussia declared himself and his successors bound to every person who should for the time being be the holder of the bond, for the payment of the principal and 652 THE KING V: THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH 3 B. & C. 46. interest, in the manner there pointed out. It was further proved, that bonds of this description were sold in the market, and passed from hand to hand daily, like Exchequer bills, at a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Forth and Others v Stanton, Widow
...v. Samuda. 1 Taunt. "265, S. C. 7 Taunt. 278, Lucas v. Dmrien. 1 B. Moore, 29, S. C. [See further, as to foreign Government securities, 3 B. & C. 45, Gwgier v. Miewlk. 7 Bing. 284, Lang v. Smyth. 5 M. & P. 78, S. C.] An assignment of a chose in action need not be by deed. 4 T. R. 690, Howel......
-
Partridge against The Governor and Company of The Bank of England
...upon which the law merchant, or eome statute, or the law of a foreign country where the instrument is made (Gorgier v. Mieville (3 B. & C. 45)), has conferred the property of becoming negotiable by the insertion of such words. Even then English instruments require the words; Plimley v. West......
-
Lang v Smyth
...into the title to money, or to instruments passing from hand to hand in the usual course of mercantile business. In Gorgier v. Mieville (3 B. & C. 45), it was held that Prussian bonds, payable to the holder, passed by delivery in this country as bank notes. Wilde and Adams Serjts. shewed ca......
-
Barnett and Others v Brandao
...that the bankers might have sold these bills; but it was argued that they could not pledge them; and the case of a factor pledging the (K) 3 B. & C. 45, 4 D. & E. 645. In Wookey v. Pole it was held that exchequer bills pass by delivery, because they are negotiable securities, and because, l......