Lloyd (Pauper) v Grace, Smith and Company
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 28 March 1912 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1912] UKHL J0328-1 |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Date | 28 March 1912 |
[1912] UKHL J0328-1
House of Lords
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 Parliament might seem meet; as also upon the printed Case of Messrs. Grace, Smith and Company, lodged in answer to the said Appeal: And due consideration had this day of what was offered on either side in this Cause:
It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Court of Parliament of His Majesty the King assembled, That the said Order of His Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 11th day of April 1911, complained of in the said Appeal, be, and the same is hereby, Reversed, and that the Judgment of Mr. Justice Scrutton, of the 11th day of November 1910, thereby set aside, be, and the same is hereby, Restored: And it is further Ordered, That the Respondents do transfer to the Appellant the mortgage of the Ellesmere Port property, dated the 13th day of January 1910, and do pay the Appellant's Costs of such transfer, and do account for the rents and profits of the said property from the 22d day of April 1911; the Respondents to be credited with the sum of seventeen pounds nine shillings and ten pence, paid by them to the Appellant under the Order of Mr. Justice Scrutton: And it is further Ordered, That the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
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" ... ...
-
Dubai Aluminium Company Ltd v Salaam
...is defrauded by an employee acting within the scope of his apparent authority. The classic instance of this is Lloyd v Grace, Smith & Co [1912] AC 716, where Mrs Lloyd delivered the title deeds of her cottages at Ellesmere Port to the solicitors' fraudulent managing clerk. The critical feat......
-
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
-
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......
-
Table of cases
...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
...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......
-
WORKPLACE SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN SINGAPORE: THE LEGAL CHALLENGE
...An employer cannot escape liability on the ground that he did not authorise the employee to commit torts (Lloyd v Grace, Smith & Co[1912] AC 716 at 725 (HL); Heatons Transport (St Helens) Ltd v Transport and General Workers Union[1972] 3 All ER 101 (HL); Adams (Durham) Ltd & Day v Trust Hou......
-
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,......