Wookey v Pole, Bart and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1820 |
| Date | 01 January 1820 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 106 E.R. 839
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
REPORTS of CASES ARGUED and DETERMINED in the COURT of KING'S BENCH. By RICHARD YAUGHAN BARNEWALL,.of Lincoln's Inn, and EDWARD HALL ALDERSON, of the Inner Temple, Esqrs. Barristers at Law. Yol. IY. Containing the Cases of Michaelmas, Hilary, Easter, and Trinity Terms, in the 1st and 2d of GEORGE IY. 1820, 1821. [1] cases argued and determined in the couet or king's bench, in michaelmas term, in the first year op the reign of george IV. wookey against pole, bart. and others. 1820. An Exchequer bill, the blank in which was not filled up, having been placed for sale in the hands of A., he, instead of selling it, deposited it at his banker's, who made him advances to the amount of its value. A. afterwards becoming bankrupt, it was held by three justices, Bayley J. dissentiente, that the owner of the Exchequer bill could not maintain trover against the bankers, the property in such an Exchequer bill, like bank notes and bills of exchange indorsed in blank, passing by delivery. [Principle applied, Gorgier v. Mieville, 1824, 3 B. & C. 45. Considered, Goodwin v. Eobarts, 1875-1876, L. R. 10 Ex.' 350; 1 App. Gas. 476. Applied, Picker v. London and County Banking Company, 1887, 18 Q. B. D. 518.] This was an action of trover for an Exchequer bill, for the payment of 10001. and interest. The defendants pleaded the general issue; and the cause coming on to be tried at the sittings in London, after Michaelmas term, 1818, before the Lord Chief Justice, a verdict was found for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the Court upon the following case: The plaintiff was, on the 1st of November 1817, proprietor and possessor of a legal and valid Exchequer bill, [2] worded and signed as follows, "No. 8333, 12 May, 1817.-By virtue of an Act of Parliament quinquagesimo Septimo Geo. 3, Regis, for raising the sum of 24,000,0001. by Exchequer bills, for the service of the year 1817, this bill entitles or order, to one thousand pounds, with interest after the rate of 2Jd. per centum per diem, payable out of the first aids or supplies to be granted the next session of Parliament, and this bill is to be current and pass in any of the public revenues, aids, taxes, or supplies, or at the receipt of Exchequer at Westminster after the 5th day of April. Dated at the Exchequer the 12th day of May, 1817. If the blank is not filled up, the bill will be paid to bearer. " Grenville. "N.B. The cheques must not be cut off." Early in the month of November the plaintiff sent such Exchequer bill by his wife to Messrs. Pawsey and Eaton, who were then stock-brokers, carrying on business in copartnership, for the purpose of being sold, and the wife delivered it to them, with orders to sell it for the plaintiff, and to invest the proceeds of such sale in 5 Per Cent. Stock in the plaintiff's name. They, however, did not sell the Exchequer bill as 839 840 WOOKEY V.POLE 4 B. &ALD. 3. they were directed, nor did they buy any stock for the plaintiff, but took the bill so delivered to them to the defendants, (who carry on business in partnership as bankers, and with whom Pawsey and Eaton had a banking account,) deposited it with them, the same still continuing in blank as to the name of any payee, and in consequence of such deposit, got them to place to the credit of their banking account a sum of 8001. on the 7th November afterwards, and another sum of 2001. on the 8th of the same month, before the defendants had any knowledge [3] of the circumstances or terms upon which Pawsey and Eaton held the same bill; but the defendants did not place the Exchequer bill to the credit of Pawsey and Eaton. The latter afterwards, at various times, paid in to the credit of their banking account with the defendants, monies amounting to 3001. and upwards, and also drew monies out at various times; and on the 27th January, 1818, they had drawn out of defendants' hands all the funds to their credit within 461. 10s., and the balance still remains unsettled. The plaintiff, as soon as he was informed of this misconduct of Pawsey and Eaton, being the 14th January, 1818, applied to the defendants, explained the facts, and required to have the Exchequer bill in question delivered up to him; but the defendants refused to deliver it up to the plaintiff, saying they had advanced money to Pawsey and Eaton on its security. The defendants afterwards, on the 27th January aforesaid, sold the said bill on their own account, and received the proceeds. The ease was argued in last Easter term by Sir W. Owen, for the plaintiff. The question in this case is, whether an Exchequer bill is to be considered as money or goods. If it be of the latter description, it may be followed into the hands of a third person, unless it be transferred by the owner or under his authority, or by sale in market overt. In the case, indeed, of money, bank notes, or bills of exchange indorsed in blank, it has been held that trover will not lie against a third person, coming boni fide into possession and giving value; and the reason assigned for this is, because they are the circulation of the country, which would be impeded if pursued. They have a fixed value; money by Koyal proclamation, and notes and bills as the repre-[4]-sentatives of money; but Exchequer bills constitute no part of the currency of the country, nor are they negotiable instruments. The Exchequer bills are made for large sums, none under 1001., and so not adapted for the purposes of currency. They are issued under Acts of Parliament, passed since the Eevolution, and called in at certain times, and paid off. All Exchequer bills of late years have been issued under various regulations, made by the 48 G-. 3, c. 1, which have been recognised by the subsequent Acts, and, among others, by the 57 G. 3, c. 2, under which this bill issued. Exchequer bills are sold in market overt as stock, varying in its value, being sometimes at a premium and at others at a discount. In Nightingale, Assignees, v. Devisme (5 Burr. 2589), it was decided that stock could not be considered as money, and in Ford v. Hopkins (1 Salk. 283), which was an action for lottery tickets, Holt C.J. said, "That if bank notes, Exchequer notes, or million tickets are stolen or lost, the owner has such an interest or property in them, as to bring an action into whatsoever hands they are come." Lord Mansfield, indeed, in Miller v. Eace (1 Burr. 452), considers the report in Ford v. Hopkins as incorrect in making Lord Holt speak of bank notes, Exchequer notes, and lottery tickets, as like to each other; but what Lord Mansfield says as to lottery tickets is applicable to Exchequer bills; he says, " No two things can be more unlike than a lottery ticket and a bank note: lottery tickets are identical and specific. Specific actions lie for them. They may prove extremely unequal in value ; one may be a prize, another a blank. Land is not more specific than lottery tickets are. A bank note is constantly and universally, both at home and abroad, treated as money, [5] as cash; and paid and received as cash; and it is necessary for the purposes of commerce, that their currency should be established and secured." None of these observations apply to Exchequer bills, which, like stock, rise and fall in value. In Madish v. Ekins (Say. 73), it was expressly decided that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mƒ€™DONNELL v MURRAY
...Charnley v. GrundyENR 14 C. B. 608. Wain v. Bailey 10 Ad. & Ell. 616. Raphael v. Bank of EnglandENR 17 C. B. 161. Wookey v. PoleENR 4 B. & Ald. 1. Hansard v. RobinsonENR 7 B. & C. 90. Walmsley v. Child 1 Ves. 341. Glynn v. The Bank of England 2 Ves. 38. Tercese v. Geray Finchƒ€™s Rep. ......
-
John Kean and Jane His Wife, Administratrix of William Craig, v James Strong and Others, Executors of John Maxwell
...before the covenant was to be performed, the covenant cannot now be (a) 2 Doug. 684. (c) 2 East, 581. (e) 6 Mod. 194. (g) 2 Stra. 776. (i) 4 B. & A1.266. (b) Skin. 39. (d) 3 Mod. 337; S. C. Carth. 182. 0) 3 Rep. 22, b. (h) 3 T.j2. 393. (k) 1 Salk. 80. CASES AT LAW. 545 enforced: Brudnell v.......
-
The Trustees of The Charities of Joseph Evans v The Governor and Company of The Bank of Ireland
...from the case before the Court ?]-That is a case analogous to the case of (a) 10 Mees. & Wels. 548. (b) 9 Car. & P. 618. (c) 4 B. & A1.21. (d) 5 B. & Al. 348. CASES AT LAW. 383 Collis v. Emmett; but if the 'clerk break the desk and use the M. T. 1848. Queen' sBench. stamps, it cannot be sai......
-
Secfin Bank Ltd v Mercantile Bank Ltd and Others
...as a Treasury bill, is regarded as a negotiable instrument. This was held to be some 170 years ago. Wookey v Pole, Bart and Another (1820) 106 ER 839. In this case Best J at 840 I 'It cannot be disputed that this Exchequer bill was made to represent money, as much as a bank note or a bill o......