Rogers v Kelly
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 May 1809 |
| Date | 20 May 1809 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 1102
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
[123] Saturday, May 20, 1809. rogers v kelly. (A. pays a sum of money into a banker's for a specific purpose ; the bankers/ clerk, by mistake, pays this money to B. who has no right to it. Held, that A. cannot maintain an action against B. to recover it back.) This was an action for money had and received, to recover the sum of 130 under the following circumstances : The plamtifl having indorsed a bill drawn by one L. C. for 130 payable at Messrs. Austins and Co. and finding that it would not be honoured by the acceptor, paid in this sum of money to the bankers for the purpose of retiring it. The defendant held another bill of exchange for the same sum, accepted by the same person, due the same day, and payable at the same place. The latter bill being presented for payment first, and no funds being provided to pay it, the bankers' clerk by mistake, gave the defendant the 130 paid in by the plaintiff to satisfy the bill to which he had put his name. Garrow for the plaintiff contended, that as the money had been paid in for a specific purpose, and as the very money paid in had been given by mistake to the defendant^ it was to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
OBG Ltd and another v Allan and Others
...was treated as a matter between the paying party and the recipient which did not affect the creditor's position. Thus in Rogers v Kelly (1809) 2 Camp 123 a bank had mistakenly paid the defendant some money which the plaintiff had deposited. Lord Ellenborough said: "There is no privity betwe......
-
Lloyd v Berkovitz
...by the execution, as well [33] those of the (a) Pollock, C. B., was absent owing to a domestic affliction. (b) See Rogers v. Kelly, 2 Camp. 123; Edwards v. Hodding, 5 Taunt. 815; Edden v. Seaii, 3 Camp. 338 ; Gray v. (hitterulge, 3 C. & P. 40. (c) 4 Dowl. P. C. 444; reported on another poin......
-
Clarke and Another, Assignees of Scrivener, a Bankrupt, v Gilbert
...by ear-mark may be retained by one who has received it bona fide from an owner de facto. Miller v. Race (1 Burr. 452). In Rogers v. Kelly (2 Campb. 123) the plaintiff having [353] indorsed a bill drawn by one L. S. for 1301. payable at Messrs. Austin's and Co., and finding that it would not......
-
M. Salaman v Isabella J. Donovan
...liability of a defendant paying money to an attorney suing without authority, Robson v. Eaton (1 T. R. 62). See, also, Rogers v. Kelly (2 Camp. 123). See, as to the motion generally, 2 Archb. Prac. 9th ed., pp. 955, 1300 ; Lush's Prac., 2nd ed. pp. 181, 186; Cole on Ejectment, pp. 75, 94, 3......