Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/810

 — Bankers and Banking.

588 Sect.

1.

Eeceipt of

Money on

1202. Current accounts may be opened with corporations, whether trading or non-trading, and they have inherent power to draw vaHd cheques apart from special authority {m).

Current Account.

Sect.

'2.

Receipt of

Money on Deposit

Account,

Corporations.

Deposit account.

Garnishee order.

1203. The receipt of money on deposit account constitutes the banker a debtor to the depositor, but not a trustee thereof for him (n). The debt is repayable either on demand or on conditions usually expressed on the receipt. Specified notice may be stipulated for, and the return of the receipt made a condition of repayment, or the deposit may be for a fixed period. If the return of the deposit receipt be a condition precedent, no actual debt arises until its return (o). In case of the loss of the receipt, however, a Court would exercise its equitable jurisdiction, and not allow the absence of the receipt to stand in the way of the depositor reclaiming his money (p). Nor would the Court require the depositor to give an indemnity, a deposit receipt not being a negotiable instrument {q). 1204. Whether a particular deposit account is attached by a garnishee order 7iisi depends on the terms on which it is held at the time of service of the order. To be affected by the order, it must be a debt " due or accruing due," that is, due or accruing due The following seem at a definite and certain approaching date (r). not attachable (1) a deposit account repayable only on production of the receipt (2) a deposit account repayable on fixed notice, which has not been given. The following are attachable (1) a deposit account repayable on demand (2) a deposit account repayable on fixed notice, which has been given (3) a deposit account repayable at a fixed future date, or after the lapse of When the account is attached, the whole a specified time. amount is impounded irrespective of the sum recovered by the









judgment Drawing against deposit account.

(s).

1205. It is doubtful whether valid cheques can be drawn against Bankers usually honour such cheques, a deposit account at call {t). Bateman v. Mid-Wales (m) Serrell v. Derbyshire Bail. Go. (1850), 9 C. B. 811 Co. (1866), L. E. 1 C. P. 499, at p. 506 (distinguishing cheques from bills) see generally title Corporations. Re Head (No. 1), [1893] 3 Ch. 426 [n) Pearce v. Cresivick (1843), 2 Hare, 286 Re Head (No. 2), [1894] 2 Ch. 236. (o) Compare AtJcinson v. Bradford Third Equitable Benefit Building Society Re Tidd, [1893] 3 Ch. 154 ; Re Dillon (1890), 44 Ch. D. (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 377

Rail









76, at p. 81.

{p) Re Dillon, supra, per Cotton, L.J., at p. 81. of cheque, and (g) Even if the deposit receipt had combined with it a form this were filled up and signed by the depositor before the loss, it is apprehended that, as the banker could not be sued on the cheque, he would not be entitled to an indemnity. TVebb v. Stenton (1883), (r) Jones v. Thompson (1858), 27 L. J. (q. b.) 234 Q. B. D. 518. (s) Rogers v. JVhiteley, [1892] A. C. 118. favour of their validity -{t) The view expressed bv Malins, V.-C, in Hopkins v. Abbott (1875), L. 19 Eq. 222, at p. 228, and /Stem v. Rither don [1868),

U



,

K

.

m .