Marzetti against Williams and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 November 1830 |
| Date | 18 November 1830 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 109 E.R. 842
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 9 L. J. K. B. O. S. 42. Adopted and applied, Bushell v. Bevan, 1834, 1 Bing. N. C. 124; Boorman v. Brown, 1842-44, 3 Q. B. 518; 11 Cl. & F. 1; Clifton v. Hooper, 1844, 6 Q. B. 475. Discussed, Beckham v. Drake, 1849, 2 H. L. C. 611, 641. Approved, Rolin v. Steward, 1854, 14 C. B. 605. Referred to, Hyde v. Bulmer, 1868, 18 L. T. 294. Discussed, Prehn v. Royal Bank of Liverpool, 1870, L. R. 5 Ex. 97. Principle applied, Larios v. Bonany, 1873, L. R. 5 P. C. 357; King v. British Linen Company, 1899, 1 F. 934.
[415] makzetti against williams and others. Thursday, Nov. 18th, 1830. A banker is bound by law to pay a check drawn by a customer, yithin a reason-able_time after he the banker has received sufficient funds belonging to the customer ; and the latter may maintain an action of_tortjigainst the banker for refusing payment of a check under such circumstances^ although he has not thereby sustained any actual damage. [S. C. 9 L. J. K. B. 0. S. 42. Adopted and applied, Bushell v. Sevan, 1834, 1 Bing. N. C. 124; Boorman v. Brown, 1842-44, 3 Q. B. 518; 11 Cl. & F. 1 ; Clifton v. Hooper, 1844, 6 Q. B. 475. Discussed, BecWiam v. Drake, 1849, 2 H. L. C. 611, 641. Approved, Rolin v. Steward, 1854, 14 C. B. 605. Referred to, Hyde v. Bulmer, 1868, 18 L. T. 294. Discussed, Prehn v. Royal Bank of Liverpool, 1870, L. E. 5 Ex. 97. Principle applied, Larios v. Bonany, 1873, L. E. 5 P. C. 357 ; King v. British Linen Company, 1899, 1 F. 934.] Declaration stated, that the plaintiff long before and at the time of the committing of the grievances thereinafter mentioned, was and from thence hitherto had been a trader, to wit, a wine merchant and a ship and insurance agent, and the trades and businesses of a wine merchant and ship and insurance agent used, exercised, and carried on, and still used, &c. to wit, at London. That the defendants before and at the time of committing the grievance by them thereinafter next mentioned, were, and still were bankers, and the trade and business of bankers used, exercised, and carried on, and still used, &c. in the City of London, to wit, at, &c. ; and, as such bankers, had been used to receive and take into their charge monies, bills, notes, and other securities of divers persons, customers of and dealing with the defendants in the way of their trade and commerce in the City of London. That by the usage and custom of trade and commerce in the City of London, persons being bankers, and using the trade and business of bankers within the City of London, and receiving into their care and custody the monies, bills, notes, and securities of persons being the customers of or dealing with such persons as bankers as aforesaid in the way of their trade and business of bankers, and having in their hanfls cash balances of such their customers and persons dealing with them as aforesaid, and not having lent or advanced money to discount any bills or bill, notes or note, or other negotiable secu-[416]-rities, or made any advances, or incurred, or entered into any engagements or contracts, or incurred or subjected themselves to any liabilities for or on account of such their customers or persons dealing with them as bankers as aforesaid, nor having any lien or claim on such cash balances, were bound, and it had been and was their duty as bankers as aforesaid, to honour and pay tbe drafts or checks of such their customers and persons dealing with them, duly drawn for any part of such cash balances, when duly presented to such bankers for payment by any person or persons lawfully entitled to recover the money specified in such drafts or checks. That long before and at the time of committing the grievance by the defendants thereinafter next 1B.&AD.417. MARZETTI V. WILI4AMS 843 mentioned, plaintiff was a rMiqj-.fvrmvr_ of and dealt with the defendants in the way of their said trade and business of bankers, and at the time of committing the grievance, &c. had in their bBtrrdsr^s~Ñuch~Bankers as aforesaid, a large cash balance, and much more than sufficient to pay and discharge the money specified in the draft or order thereinafter next mentioned, to wit, a cash balance of 1091. 19s. 6d., and defendants had not lent or advanced to the plaintiff any money, nor discounted any bills or bill, notes or note or other negotiable securities for, nor made any advances, nor entered into any engagements or contracts, or incurred or subjected themselves to any liabilities for or on account of the plaintiff, who was so a customer of and dealt with them as bankers as aforesaid, nor had they, or any of them, any lien or claim on the said cash balance of the plaintiff so being in their hands as aforesaid. That whilst such cash balance was in the hands of the defendants as his bankers as aforesaid, to wit, on the 18th of December 1828, to wit, at London [417] aforesaid ; the plaintiff, according to the usage and custom of merchants, made and drew his certain draft or order in writing for the payment of money...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Table of cases
...(2d) 260 (Alta. S.C.T.D.) .............................................................. 215 Marzetti v. Williams (1830), 1 B. & Ad. 415, 109 E.R. 842 (K.B.) ............. 272, 286 Massey v. Midland Bank plc, [1995] 1 All E.R. 929 (C.A.) ................................ 211 Master Charge v.......
-
DAMAGES FOR REFUSAL TO PAY CUSTOMERS CHEQUE
...the bankers had very little confidence in the customer. It is an act particularly calculated to be injurious to a person "in trade" (See 109 E.R. 842. and (1830) 1 B. Ald. 415 at 424). Marzettis Case (supra) was followed in the case of Rolin v. Steward (1854) 14 C. B. 595, which was a case......