Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/807

 — Part

III.

Business of Banking.

585

set up the right of any person other than his But where moneys obviously in the hands of a

account,

or to

customer

(/).

Government official in that capacity are paid into a private account and drawn out by him, it seems possible that the banker might be called upon by the Crown, not only to hand over any existing balance, but also to make good any wrongful drawings out (0-

Sect.

Money on Current Account.

1194. Money may be paid into a customer's current account by a Payment third person, and, in ordinary cases, the banker is bound to accept by third persons. it. But where a cheque for an amount larger than the available balance is presented, the banker should not allow the holder to pay in the deficit, and then pay the cheque (n).

money

1195. The banker's lien applies to account (o).

paid in on current

Money on

1.

Receipt of

in

Lien,

current account is subject to the legal incidents Dispositions customer, under a bequest by the customer of " moneys owing to me at the time of my decease " (p), though it equally falls within a bequest of " ready money " (q). It is payable to the legal representatives of a deceased customer on production of probate or letters of administration (?•). It is repayable on demand, the drawing of a cheque not being a condition precedent (s). It may be legally assigned (a), but probably only as a whole, by a single assignment {h). In England a cheque is not an assignment (c). On the bankruptcy of the customer any balance to his credit passes to his trustee in bankruptcy, and the banker may be summarily compelled to pay it over (c^On the service of a garnishee order nisi, made on a judgment Garnishee against the customer, the whole credit balance on current account o^"^^^'is impounded, irrespective of the relative amounts of such balance and the judgment debt, and the banker cannot diminish the balance

1196.

of a debt.

It passes

Backhouse v. Charlton (1878), 8 (/) Gh-ay v. Jolmdon (1868), L. E. 3 H. L. 1 Ch. D. 444. (m) Re West London Commercial Bank (1888), 38 Ch. D. 364. Apart from its being a (n) Foster v. Ba7ik of London (1862), 3 F. & F. 214. disclosure of a customer's account, such a proceeding is regarded by bankers as improper. (o) Misa V. Currie (1876), 1 App. Cas. 5.54. InRoxhurghe v. Cox (1881), 17 Ch. D. 520, the Court of Appeal, while not disputing this, preferred to base their judgment on the ground of set-off. Re Derbyshire, [1906] 1 Ch. 135. ( j?) (q) Stein v. Ritherdon (1868), 37 L. J. (ch.) 369. (r) Tarn v. Commercial Bank of Sydney (1884), '12 Q. B. D. 294. Fott v. Clegcj (1847), {s) Foley v. Hill (1848), 2 H. L. Cas. 28, at pp. 36, 43 Walker v. Bradford Old Bank (1884), 12 Q. B. D. 511 Rc 16 .M. & W. 321 Tidd, [1893] 3 Ch. 154. Walker v. Vict. c. 66), s. 25 (6) (a) Judicature Act, 1873 (36 & 37 See, further, title Choses in Action. Bradford Old Bank, suiora. Jones v. Humphreys, (b) Durham Brothers v. Robertson, [1898] 1 Q. B. 765 Hughes v. Pum'p House Hotel Co., [1902] 2 K. B. 190, jper [1902] 1 K. B. 10













Mathew, (c)

id)

L.J., at p. 195.

Exchange Act, 1882 (45 Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47

Bills of

&

46 Vict.

Vict.

c.

c.

52),

61), s.

50

s.

53

(6).

(1).