Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/828

 Bankeks and Banking.

606

Sect. 6. If^ however, the amount is credited as cash, whether received or Payment of not, the customer is at once entitled to draw against it (/), unless C hequ es, precluded from doing so by agreement or course of business (g). Funds^iiot

1232. A balance at one branch of a bank does not entitle a customer to draw on another branch where he has no account or is overdrawn (h). If the customer has, in the same capacity, accounts at two or more branches, the bank is entitled to combine them in the absence of agreement or course of business, and treat the ultimate credit balance, if any, as alone available for drawing purposes (i). A garnishee order nisi founded on a judgment against the customer and served on the banker prevents any credit balance being available irrespective of the relative amounts of the judgment

and the balance

(k).

for the customer not yet due do not render a credit balance on current account not available (l). If a banker has marked cheques (m) at the instance of the customer, he is entitled to retain funds to meet them. Lien, set-off, or the Statute of Limitations may render moneys not

Bills discounted

available.

A receiving order against, or notice of an available act of bankruptcy on the part of, the customer renders moneys standing to his credit at the time not available (n), Breach of trust.

It is not the banker's business or right to set up the title persons other than his customer, and mere suspicion that a breach of trust is involved or intended in the drawing of a cheque on trust funds is not sufficient (o). But it is hardly conceivable that a Court would award damages against the banker to a customer

1233.

of

Bank

Gordon, [1903] A. C. 240, per Lord Lindley, by the Bills of Exchange (Crossed Cheques) That Act only Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 17), even in the case of crossed cheques. touches relations between the banker and the true owner. (g) Akrokerri (Atlantic) Mines, Ltd. v. Economic Bank, [1904] 2 K. B. 465 ; (/) Capital and Counties

v.

at p. 249, is apparently not att'ected

compare Bevan v. The National Bank (1906), 23 T. L. R. 65. compare Garnett v. M'Kewan (/i) Woodland v. Fear (1857), 7 E. & B. 519 (1872), L. R. 8 Exch. 10; Union Bank of Australia v. Murray- Ay nsley, [1898]

A. C. 693. Garnett v. M^Kewan, supra j Buckingham <& Co. v. London and Midland (1895), 12 T. L. R. 70 (course of business precluding combination). Yates v. Terry, [1901] 1 K. B. 102 {k) Rogers v. Whiteley, [1892] A. C. 118 (county court order). See p. 585, ante. (l) Bower v. Foreign and Colonial Gas Co. (1874), 22 W. R. 740, distinguishing Bolland v.Bygrave (1825), 1 Ry. & M. 271, which had previously been doubted iu Barnett v. Brandao (1843), 6 Man. & G. at p. 654 Jeffryes v. Agra and Masterman's Bank (1866), L. R. 2 Eq. 674. In the event of a customer's bankruptcy, apart from any determination of the authority to pay cheques, the banker could probably hold a credit balance as against such bills. See Bankruptcy Act, 1883 Alsager v. Currie (1844), 12 M. & W. 751. (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 38 (m) Cheques are sometimes marked by bankers as a warrant to persons taking them that the bankers hold sufficient funds on the drawer's account to meet the (i)

Bank







cheques. (n)

See note

{u), p.

607, post.

Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. Gray v. Johnston (1868), L. R. 3 H. L.

c.

52),

ss. 9,

49.

j9erLord Westbury, at p. 14 Bank of New South Wales v. Goulhurn Valley Butter Co. Proprietary, Ltd., [1902] A. C. 543 ; Coleman v. Bucks and Oxon Union Bank, [1897] 2 Ch. 243. (o)

1,