Lloyd (Pauper) v Grace, Smith and Company
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Judgment Date | 28 March 1912 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1912] UKHL J0328-1 |
| Date | 28 March 1912 |
Lloyd (Pauper)
and
Grace, Smith and Company.
[1912] UKHL J0328-1
House of Lords
1
After hearing Counsel, as well on Tuesday the 27th, as on Thursday the 29th, days of February last, upon the Petition and Appeal of Emily Lloyd, of 10 Cambridge Road, Great Crosby, in the County of Lancaster, widow, pauper, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of His Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 11th of April 1911, might be reviewed before His Majesty the King in His Court of Parliament, and that the said Order might be reversed, varied, or altered, or that the Petitioner might have such other relief in the premises as to His Majesty the King in His Court of...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
214 cases
-
Dubai Aluminium Company Ltd v Salaam
... ... The judge's findings are reported at [1999] 1 Lloyd's Rep 415 and the conclusions of the Court of Appeal at [2001] 1 QB 113 ... The classic instance of this is Lloyd v Grace, Smith & Co [1912] AC 716 , where Mrs Lloyd delivered the title deeds ... ...
-
Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd
... ... 2 The appellant is a company which provides security services. In 1968 it entered into a ... v. National Mortgage Bank of Greece [1964] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 446 in which he had put forward the "rule of law" ... ...
-
Slingsby v District Bank Ltd
... ... Bank to the credit of a company in which he was interested and which had an account at that ... Lloyd v. Grace, Smith & Co. [ 1912 ] A. C. 716 ... ...
- Negara Traders Ltd v Pesuroh Jaya Ibu Kota, Kuala Lumpur
Get Started for Free
1 firm's commentaries
-
Good News for Auditors?
...of the company, were ìinsidersî. Thus BFS were not to be made liable for Mr Jones' fraud because the rule in Lloyd v Grace Smith & Co [1912] AC 716 governs a company's liability to ìoutsidersî only. The Judge did accept that auditors are to be treated as ìinsidersî. He also held that it......
12 books & journal articles
-
A Pyrrhic Victory for Unjust Enrichment in Singapore? Esben Finance Ltd v Wong Hou‐Lianq Neil
...is ThompsonvBell (1854) 10 Exch 10, 156 ER 334 (Ex Ct).147 On similar facts as Thompson vBell ibid, contrast Lloyd vGrace, Smith & Co [1912] AC 716 (HL),analysed in terms of deceit.148 Grantham and Rickett, n 142 above,293-296.149 n 140 above.150 (1760) 2 Burr 1005, 97 ER 676.151 Ibbetson, ......
-
Table of cases
...2 WLR 158 (HL) .......................................................................................... 396 Lloyd v Grace, Smith & Co, [1912] AC 716, 107 LT 531 (HL) ...........................388 London Drugs Ltd v Kuehne & Nagel International Ltd, [1992] 3 SCR 299, (sub nom London Drugs......
-
Agency
...the benefit of the principal or not provided he is shown to have acted within the scope of their authority. Llyod v. Grace Smith & Co. (1912) A.C. 716 and Trenco Nig. Limited v. African Real Estate Investment Co. Ltd. & Another (1978) 1 L.R.N. 146; Wood v. Martins bank (1958) 1 W.L.R. 1018,......
-
Sexual Harassment and Vicarious Liability: A Warning to Political Parties
...that they may rightly be regarded as m odes – although imp roper modes – of doing t hem …’ .” See also Neethling et a l Deliktereg 404.111 1912 AC 716. See also Lister v Hesle y Hall Limited 2001 UKH L 22 para 17. 112 List er v Hesley Hall Limited 2 001 UKHL 22 para 17. However, keep in min......
Get Started for Free
