Lloyd (Pauper) v Grace, Smith and Company

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
Judgment Date28 March 1912
Judgment citation (vLex)[1912] UKHL J0328-1
CourtHouse of Lords
Date28 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 Free

Start Your 3-day 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

vLex

Start Your 3-day 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

vLex

Start Your 3-day 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

vLex

Start Your 3-day 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

vLex

Start Your 3-day 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

vLex

Start Your 3-day 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

vLex
298 cases
  • Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 14 February 1980
    ... ... 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" ... ...
  • Dubai Aluminium Company Ltd v Salaam
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 5 December 2002
    ... ... 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 ... ...
  • Slingsby v District Bank Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal
    • Invalid date
    ... ... 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
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 January 1969
  • Get Started for Free
1 firm's commentaries
  • Good News for Auditors?
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq United Kingdom
    • 28 March 2002
    ...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......
27 books & journal articles
  • A Pyrrhic Victory for Unjust Enrichment in Singapore? Esben Finance Ltd v Wong Hou‐Lianq Neil
    • United Kingdom
    • Wiley The Modern Law Review No. 86-2, March 2023
    • 1 March 2023
    ...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
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Bank and Customer Law in Canada. Second Edition
    • 19 June 2013
    ...228, 326 Lipkin Gorman v. Karpnale Ltd., [1991] 2 A.C. 548 (H.L.) ....................... 300, 304 Lloyd v. Grace, Smith & Co., [1912] A.C. 716 (H.L.) ......................................... 432 Lloyds Bank Ltd. v. Bundy, [1975] Q.B. 326 (C.A.) .................203, 205, 207–8, 216 Lloyds......
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Archive The Law of Torts. Fourth Edition
    • 8 September 2011
    ...W.L.R. 158 (H.L.) ..................................................................................... 373 Lloyd v. Grace, Smith & Co., [1912] A.C. 716, 107 L.T. 531 (H.L.) ................... 366 London Drugs Ltd. v. Kuehne & Nagel International Ltd., [1992] 3 S.C.R. 299, (sub nom. London......
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Archive The Law of Torts. Fifth Edition
    • 30 August 2015
    ...[1957] 2 W.L.R. 158 (H.L.) .......................................................................... 393 Lloyd v. Grace, Smith & Co., [1912] A.C. 716, 107 L.T. 531 (H.L.) ................... 385 London Drugs Ltd. v. Kuehne & Nagel International Ltd., [1992] 3 S.C.R. 299, (sub nom. London D......
  • Get Started for Free