Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/809

 — Part expressed,

be

engagement

or

III.

can

be

Business of Banking. implied from

the

character

587 of

his

^^ct.

i.

Receipt of

(s).

Money on 1198. Unless precluded by agreement, express or implied from Current the course of business, the banker is entitled to combine different Account, accounts kept by the customer in his own right, even though at combination different branches of the same bank, and to treat the balance, if any, of different as the only amount really standing to his credit {t). The customer, accounts, however, has not the equivalent right, and cannot utilise a credit balance at one branch for the purpose of drawing cheques on another branch where he has no account or where his account is overdrawn

(a).

1199. A banker account in credit notice

and

(c)

cheques

not entitled arbitrarily to close a current He must give the customer reasonable make satisfactory provision for outstanding is

(b).

Closing of account,

(d).

A current account may be opened with a married woman Married her own name (e). Opening it constitutes a binding contract women, with the married woman, whether she have separate property at the time or not (/). She has power to draw cheques and give a sufficient discharge (g) and bond fide dealings with the account cannot subsequently be questioned to the prejudice of the banker (//). 1200.

in



1201. A current account may be opened with an infant so long as it is not allowed to be overdrawn; for an infant may be a creditor (?). A cheque drawn by an infant entitles the holder to receive payment, and so constitutes a discharge (k). An infant cannot claim again money paid out to him or others on his cheques

{I).

Cory Brothers Owners of Steamship Mecca, [1897] A. C. 286, at p. 295. Citij Discount Go. v. McLean (1874), L. E. 9 C. P. 692. Buckingham v. London and {t) Garnett v. AI'Kewan (1872), L. R. 8 Exch. 10 Midland Bank (1895), 12 T. L. E. 70 (where the banker was precluded by the {s)

Compare



course of business). (a) Garnett v. M^Kewan, supra; see

p. 606, jjosi.

Buckingham v. London and Midland Bank, supra ; Agra and Masterman's Bank, Ltd. v. Hoffman (1864), 34 L. J. (ch.) 285 Thomas y. Hoivell {1874:),L. E. and compare Gumming v. Shand 18 Eq. 198, per Malins, V.-C, at p. 202 (I860), 5 H. & N. 95. (c) See cases cited in last note, and Berry v. Halifax Commercial Banking Co., (b)





[1901] {d)

Vol.

1

Ch. 188.

For form II., p.

of notice to customer closing account, see Encyclopaedia of

Eorms,

476.

The (e) Married Women's Property Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 75), ss. 6, 7. wording, which specifies deposits in a bank, must be taken to cover a current See generally title Husband and Wife. account. (/) Married Women's Property Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 63). (g) Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 22 (1). (h) Re Montague (1897), 76 L. T. 203. (i) Compare Nottingham Permanent Benefit Building Society v. Thurstan, [1903] A. C. 6 and see title Infants. (k)- Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), ss. 22 (2), 73. (l) "The disability of infancy goes no further than is necessary for the protection of the infant " [Burnahy v. Equitable Reversionary Interest Society (1885), 28 Ch. D. 416, per Pearson, J., at p. 424 Valentini v. Canali (1889), 24 Q. B. D. 166).



Infants,