Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/811

 — Part

III.

Business of Banking.

relying on lien or set-off, either of

account _ _

which applies

589 to

a

deposit

.

A

T

,

.

,

.

m .

.

,

action, may be deposit account, being a chose assigned as a whole under the Judicature Act, 1873 (b), but the mere transfer of a deposit receipt does not constitute such an

1206.

,

,

assignment

A

2.

V

^

^

Money on Deposit Account, Assimment.

(c).

if in terms it is expressed to be transferhas never been recognised as a negotiable instrument, or as

deposit receipt, even

able,

Sect.

Receipt of

(a).

Transfer of ^^P^^i* ^^^^^^

'

giving the transferee a right to sue in his own name (d). Possibly a bank, having issued the document in a transferable form, might be estopped from disputing its character as such. A form of cheque is sometimes indorsed on a deposit receipt. In such case, imposed, such as previous notice, have been if any conditions fulfilled, the bank cannot, as between itself and the depositor, refuse Payment to a person wrongfully dealing with to pay the holder (<?). even a signed deposit receipt is no discharge to the bank, unless the depositor is estopped by his conduct from disputing such payment (/). A deposit receipt may be the subject of a donatio mortis causa, Donatio mortis causa. and the Court will compel the legal representatives of the deceased to facilitate the receipt of the money by the donee (ry). Where a document combining the features of a deposit receipt and a cheque is so given, the validity of the gift will depend on which is the pre-

dominant characteristic

{h).

1207. A deposit receipt is exempt from stamp duty (i) as an stamp agreement or otherwise {k). The exemption holds good though a time- be fixed for repayment (/), nor does provision for payment of interest afiect the question {m)

.

37 L. J. (CH.) 369, seems inconsistent with the reasoning in i?e ifmc? (No. 2), [1894] Compare also Re Tidd, [1893j 3 Ch. 154, per North, J., at p. 156. 2 Ch. 236. (a) See p. 622, post. (6) 36 & 37 Vict. c. 66, s. 25 (6). Ulster Bank (1877), 11 Jr. R. C. L. 512, though it maybe a (c) Moore v. good equitable assignment {Re Griffin, [1899] 1 Ch. 408). Moore v. Ulster Bank, supra. (d) Re Dillon (1890), 44 Ch. D. 76 Re Dillon, supra. (e) Re Mead (1880), 15 Ch. D. 651 (/) Evans v. National Provincial Bank of England (1897), 13 T. L. R. 429 ; and see Pearce v. Creswick (1843), 2 Hare, 286. (g) Re Mead, supra ; Re Dillon, supra. (h) See Re Dillon, supra. (i) Stamp Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 39), Sched. I., Receipt, Exemp;



-

tion

(1).

Home v.

Redfearn (1838), 4 Bing. (n. c.) 433, where the Court stated that the to be an agreement, would have been exempt as a deposit receipt if given by a banker. Compare (1) Thomson v. Bell (1894), 22 Ct. Sess. Cas., 4th series, 16, at p. 18. Home V. Redfearn, supra ; Mortgage Insurance Corporation v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue (1888), 21 Q. B. D. 352. It is not a promise to pay within sect. 33 of the Stamp Act, 1891, but merely a recognition of legal obligation resulting from the loan of which it is evidence. (m) In Bank of Scotland v. Watson (1813), 1 Dow, 40, the House of Lords declined to express an opinion on the point. The Stamp Act, 1815 (55 Geo. 3, c. 184), made bankers' receipts containing any agreement or memorandum that interest should be paid for the money deposited chargeable with stamp duty as promissory notes, but that statute is repealed, and there is no such provision in the Stamp Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 39). (k)

document, which they held

duty,