Taylor and another, Assignees of Walsh, a Bankrupt, against Sir Tho. Plumer
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1815 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 105 E.R. 721
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
Referred to, In re Strachan; Ex parte Cooke, 1876, 4 Ch. D. 127; In re West of England, &c. Bank; Ex parte Dale and Company, 1879, 11 Ch. D. 777; In re Hallett's Estate, 1879, 13 Ch. D. 717; Harris v. Truman, 1881-82, 7 Q. B. D. 353; 9 Q. B. D. 264; Patten v. Bond, 1889, 60 L. T. 585; Lister v. Stubbs, 1890, 45 Ch. D. 5 Moss v. Hancock, [1899] 2 Q. B. 119; King v. Hutton, [1899] 2 Q. B. 558; [1900] 2 Q. B. 504.
taylor and another, Assignees of Walsh, a Bankrupt, against sir tho. plumer. Friday, Feb. 10th, 1815. Where a draft for money was entrusted to a broker to buy Exchequer bills for his principal, and the broker received the money and misapplied it by purchasing American stock and bullion, intending to abscond with it and go to America, and did accordingly abscond, but was taken before he quitted England, and thereupon surrendered to the principal the securities for the American stock and the bullion, who sold the whole and received the proceeds : Held that the principal was entitled to withhold the proceeds from the assignees of the broker, who became bankrupt on the day on which he so received and misapplied the money. [Referred to, In re Strachan ; Exparte CooJce, 1876, 4 Ch. D. 127 ; In re West of England, &c., Bank; Ex parte Dale and Company, 1879, 11 Ch. D. 777 ; In re Halletfs Estate, 1879, 13 Ch. D. 717; Harris v. Truman, 1881-82, 7 Q. B. D. 353; 9 Q. B. D. 264 ; Patten v. Bond, 1889, 60 L. T. 585; Lister v. Stubbs, 1890, 45 Ch. D. 5; Moss'v. Hancock, [1899] 2 Q. B. 119 ; King v. Button, [1899] 2 Q. B. 558; [1900] 2 Q. B. 504.] Trover for the certificates or securities for 50 shares in the Bank of the United States of America, and for the certificates or securities for certain sums in the 3 Per Cent. Funded Stock of the United States, and the powers of attorney respectively relating thereto, and also for certain bullion, viz. 71 doubloons and a half. Plea, general issue. At the trial before Lord Ellenborough C.J., at the London sittings after Michaelmas term 1813, there was a verdict for the plaintiffs, damages 10,4591. 18s. 6d. in respect of the securities, and 3021. in respect of the bullion, separately, subject to the opinion of the Court upon a case reserved, which stated the plaintiffs to be the assignees of Walsh under a commission of bankruptcy of the 10th of December 1811. Walsh was a stock-broker, who had occasionally been employed by the defendant for some time before 1811. In August of that year the defendant, expecting to have occasion for a large sum of money at Michaelmas to pay for an estate which he had contracted to purchase, [563] consulted Walsh on the propriety of selling out stock to provide for such payment, and desired him to inform him when he, Walsh, thought it would be most expedient to do so. In November, the title to the estate not having been then completed, Walsh, thinking the funds likely to fall, recommended to the defendant to sell out stock, being principally in a fund which is regularly shut from the beginning of December till about the 7th of January; and the defendant having considered the matter, on the 28th of November sent Walsh orders to sell. Sales were accordingly effected by Walsh as broker on the 29th to the amount of 21,7741. 5s. sterling, the transfers to be made and the money to be paid on the 4th of (a) Core v. Dore, Sir T. Jones, 167. S. G. 2 Show. 164. 2 Wms. Saund. 133 a. TAYLOR V. PLITMEE 3.M.&S.564. December. On the 4th the stock was transferred by the defendant, and the price was received by Walsh, who on the same day paid 21,5001., part of the said price, into the hands of Messrs. Goslings and Co., the defendant's bankers, to the defendant's account, and saw the defendant and informed him of it. The defendant proposed to Walsh to invest the money in Exchequer bills until it should be wanted to pay for the estate, and in the evening desired him to call the following day for a draft in order that he, as broker, might buy Exchequer bills for the defendant. Accordingly on the next day, the 5th, about 11 o'clock in the forenoon, Walsh called, when the defendant said he had more money at his bankers than he wished to keep unemployed, and gave him a draft upon Goslings for 22,2001., which he directed him to lay out for him in the purchase of Exchequer bills, to be delivered on the same day to him, the defendant, or his bankers. The defendant did not authorize Walsh, nor was Walsh in any manner authorized to apply the draft or money [564] to be received for it, to any other purpose, nor had the defendant any reason to expect or apprehend that it would be applied to any other purpose. Walsh went to Goslings, received the amount of the draft from them in 22 Bank of England notes of 10001. each, and one for 2001., but purchased Exchequer bills to the amount of 65001. only, having bought them in the usual course of business, and he lodged them at Goslings on the defendant's account. About four in the afternoon he called on the defendant and told him that he bad lodged the 65001. Exchequer bills at Goslings, and that he had agreed for the remainder of the intended purchase of Exchequer bills to be delivered at a future day, and had therefore left a sum, which he named (being an even sum nearly corresponding with the difference of the 22,2001.) to his account at Goslings. But the fact was not so; on the contrary, Walsh being ruined in his circumstances, and completely insolvent, had, between the time of the sale of the defendant's stock and the time when he received the price of it, conceived an intention of absconding with the money when it should come to bis hands, and with that view, on the 2d of December, had given orders for the purchase of the American shares, stock, and bullion in question, in order to take them with him abroad, having no means of paying for the American shares and stock but out of the money he expected to receive belonging to the defendant, nor any money of his own to pay for the bullion, though he might have acquired money for that, but intending to pay for that also out of the defendant's money. Accordingly, after receiving the draft at Goslings, he went immediately from thence to the American stock brokers in the city, received the certificates, [565] and paid for them with 11 of the identical Bank of England notes of 10001. each, which he had just received, taking back from the broker to whom he paid them the difference of 5401. Is. 6d. The same morning he delivered to his brother-in-law another of the 10001. bank-notes, and received from his brother-in-law in exchange, a draft, of the firm in which he is a partner, on their bankers for 5001., and another draft for 1001., leaving the remainder in his brother-in-law's hands, and with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lipkin Gorman (A Firm)(Original Appellants and Cross-Respondents) v Karpnale Ltd (Formerly Playboy Club of London Ltd) (Original Respondents and Cross-Appellants)
... ... the money of or some benefit derived from another which it is against conscience that he should ... 22 In Aubert v. Walsh (1810) 3 Taunt. 277 there was a wager on 15 ... 560 , an undischarged bankrupt played a match at billiards for ?100 a side, the ... Thus, in Taylor v. Plumer (1815) 3 M. & S. 562 , where Sir ... claim made to them by the stockbroker's assignees in bankruptcy. Of course, "tracing" or ... ...
-
Boscawen and Others v Bajwa and Others ; Abbey National Plc v Boscawen and Others
... ... Appellants issued an originating summons against Mr. Bajwa and the Abbey National for enforcement ... They then transferred £2,595 from another account which they held for Mr. Bajwa in order to ... In the leading case of Taylor v Plumer (1815), 3 M. & S. 562 Lord ... ...
-
Trustee of the Property of F C Jones & Sons v Jones
... ... A supplier obtained judgment against it. The judgment was not satisfied and a ... due course the partners were adjudicated bankrupt ... 4 In the meantime, ... been in possession of goods belonging to another person, to which he had no title, and had sold ... form in the same hands was established in Taylor v. Plumer (1815) 3 M. & S. 562 ... Lord ... ...
-
Agip (Africa) Ltd v Jackson
...p. 334 saw no objection to a claim at common law. 64At p. 335, after having referred to Lord Ellenborough's judgment in Taylor v. Plumer 3 M. & S. 562, Atkin L.J. said this: "notice that in Sinclair v. Brougham (2) Lord Haldane L.C. in dealing with this decision says: 'Lord Ellenborough la......
-
Waiving Goodbye: The Rise and Imminent Fall of Waiver of Tort in Class Proceedings
...remedy possible to disallow the defendant any gain from his willful interference with property rights). 139 Taylor v. Plumer (1815), 105 E.R. 721 at 726 (K.B.), Ellenborough C.J. (the right to follow “ceases when the means of ascertainment fail, which is the case where the subject is turned......
-
Strategies to Avoid Or Mitigate Class Action Litigation
...remedy possible to disallow the defendant any gain from his willful interference with property rights). 139 Taylor v. Plumer (1815), 105 E.R. 721 at 726 (K.B.), Ellenborough C.J. (the right to follow “ceases when the means of ascertainment fail, which is the case where the subject is turned......
-
Preliminary Merits Review for Class Actions in Ontario: Thanks, But No Thanks!
...remedy possible to disallow the defendant any gain from his willful interference with property rights). 139 Taylor v. Plumer (1815), 105 E.R. 721 at 726 (K.B.), Ellenborough C.J. (the right to follow “ceases when the means of ascertainment fail, which is the case where the subject is turned......
-
Speaking the Class Action, Thinking the Class Action: A Discussion of Changing Trends in Quebec's Class Action Lexicon
...remedy possible to disallow the defendant any gain from his willful interference with property rights). 139 Taylor v. Plumer (1815), 105 E.R. 721 at 726 (K.B.), Ellenborough C.J. (the right to follow “ceases when the means of ascertainment fail, which is the case where the subject is turned......