Raphael and Another v The Governor and Company of the Bank of England
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 November 1855 |
| Date | 05 November 1855 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 139 E.R. 1030
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 25 L. J. C. P. 33. See London Joint Stock Bank v. Simmons, [1892] A. C. 219; Venables v. Baring, [1892] 3 Ch. 542.
raphael and another v. the governor and company of the bank op england. Nov. 5, 1855. [S. C. 25 L. J. C. P. 33. See London Joint Stock Bank v. Simmons, [1892] A. C. 219; Vmdbles v. Baring, [1892] 3 Ch. 542.] One who takes a bank-note or other negotiable security bona fide,-that is, giving value for it, and having no notice at the time that the party from whom he takes it has no title,-is entitled to recover upon it, even although he may at the time have had the means of knowledge of that fact, of which means he neglected to avail himself.-A money-changer at Paris, twelve months after he had received notice of a robbery of bank-notes at Liverpool, took one of the stolen notes (for 5001.) at Paris,-giving cash for it, lesi the current rate of exchange,-from a stranger, 170. B. 162. RAPHAEL V, THE BANK OF ENGLAND 1031 whom he merely required to produce his passport and write his name on the back of the note :-Held, that the circumstance of his forgetting or omitting to look for the notice was no evidence of mala fides.-Affidavits of jurymen, to the effect that they did not understand the answers given by their foreman to certain questions put to them, to amount to a finding for the plaintiff:-Held, inadmissible. This was an action brought by Messrs. Eaphael, bullion and money dealers in London, suing upon the title of Victor St. Paul & Co., money-changers of Paris, to recover the amount of a bank-note for 5001. which had been stolen. The declaration stated that the defendants, on the [162] 29th of May, 1852, by their promissory note promised to pay one Mr. Matthew Marshall, or bearer, 5001. on demand ; that the said note was then transferred and delivered to the plaintiffs, who thereby became and still were the lawful bearers thereof; and the defendants did not pay the same. There was a count for interest. The defendants pleaded,-first (to the first count), that, after the making and issuing of the note, and before the plaintiffs became the bearers thereof, the same was feloniously stolen from certain persons using the name, style, and firm of Messrs. Brown, Shipley, & Co., and that the said note was then, and still is, the property of the said Messrs. Brown, Shipley, & Co.; that the plaintiffs were not nor are bona fide holders for value or consideration of the said note, and without notice or knowledge of the premises, and that the said plaintiffs were not nor are entitled to the said note, or to sue upon or enforce payment of the same; and that the defendants refused and still did refuse to pay the said note, at the request of the said Messrs. Brown, Shipley, & Co. Secondly (to the first count), that the plaintiffs were the bearers of the note in the first count mentioned, and suing thereon as agents only and for and on behalf of one Victor St. Paul, and not otherwise, and that, after the making and issuing of the note, and before the said Victor St. Paul became the bearer thereof, the same was feloniously stolen from certain persons using the name, style, and firm of Messrs. Brown, Shipley, & Co., and that the said note was then, and still remained, the property of the said Messrs. Brown, Shipley, & Co.; that the said Victor St. Paul was not nor is a bona fide holder for value or consideration of the said note, and without notice or knowledge of the premises, and that the said Victor St. Paul was not nor is entitled to the said note, or to sue upon or enforce payment of the same; and that the defendants refused and still refuse to pay the [163] said note, at the request of Messrs. Brown, Shipley, & Co. Thirdly (to the residue of the declaration), never indebted. Issue thereon. The cause was tried before Jervis, C. J., at the sittings in London after the last term. The facts which appeared in evidence, or were admitted by the plaintiffs, were as follows:- On the 13th of November, 1852, the bank-note in question, with four others of the like amount, and five notes for 1001. each, was stolen from a clerk in the employ of Messrs. Brown, Shipley, & Co., of Liverpool. Payment of the stolen notes was immediately stopped, and the loss advertised by means of hand-bills circulated in Liverpool, and also at Paris, and in London. There was some evidence to shew that one of these notices came to the hands of St. Paul in April, 1853. St. Paul, who was called as a witness, stated, that he was a partner in the firm of St. Paul & Co., money-changers at Paris: that the house was in the habit of changing English bank-notes every day, frequently for very large sums; that the plaintiffs were their correspondents in London ; that he recollected taking the 5001. note the subject of this action on the 25th or 26th of June 1854, from a person who presented himself at their shop; that he asked him for his passport, which he produced, and required him to write his name and address on, the note, and then gave him the value according to the course of exchange of the day, which was 24f. 95c.; that it was the practice of the house to file all notices of stolen or lost notes served upon them, and to look to them if the amount was important; but that, on this occasion, he did not look at the file, and had no recollection of the notice, or he would not have taken the note. The learned judge left it to the jury to say,-first, [164] whether St. Paul & Co. paid the value for the note,-secondly, whether the notice of the loss was served upon them,-thirdly, whether at the time of taking the note they had the means of knowing that it had been stolen,-fourthly, whether they took it bona fide. 1032 RAPHAEL V. THE BANK OF ENGLAND 17 C. B. 165. The jury retired for about half an hour, and, on their return, the foreman, in answer to the above questions, said they found that St. Paul & Co. did give value for the note,-that they had notice of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
NH(Appellant) v The Director of Public Prosecutions
...27. 113 (2014) 250 CLR 473 at 476 [1]; [2014] HCA 3. 114 [1986] AC 860 at 871. 115Raphael v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (1855) 17 CB 161 [ 139 ER 116 Nesbitt v Parrett (1902) 18 TLR 510 . 117 R v Roads [1967] 2 QB 108 . See also Nanan [1986] AC 860 at 871. 118 Smith v The Q......
- Hasan v Willson
-
Coates v Kenna
...10 Ir. Ch. R. 263. Chadwick v. TurnerELR L. R. 1 Ch. App. 310. unter v. WaltersELR L. R. 7 Ch. App. 75. Rophart v. The Bank of EnglandENR 17 C. B. 161. The Bank of Bengal v. Fagan 7 Moo. P. C. C. 45. Mignan v. ParryENR 31 Beav. 211. Agreement to grant Lease — Recital — Memorandum endorsed —......
-
Alexander Rodger, Charles Carnie, and Richard James Gilman, - Appellants; The Comptoir D'Escompte De Paris, and The Chartered Bank of India, Australia, and China, - Respondents
...T.R. 63; and see 1 Sm. L.C. p. 699 [6th Ed.]; Cuming v. Brown (9 East, 506); Jones v. Smith (1 Hare, 43); Raphael v. The Bank of England (17 C. B. 161); Jones v. Jones (8 M. and W. 431). It is clear, that Messrs. Lyall and Co. were not Factors, and did not come within the Factors Act, 6th G......