Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/843

 — Part

III.

Business of Banking.

621

inconsistent with the Hen(^/). The Ken is not hmited to fully negotiable securities (r), but has been held to cover share certificates (s), an order to pay a particular person a sum of money (f), a policy of insurance {a), and a lease (b).

Sect.

12.

The Banker's Lien.

1254. Whatever the nature of the securities, the lien only When lien attaches when they have come to the banker's hands, qua banker, attaches, in the w^ay of his business (c) Either because the receipt of securities or valuables for safe Safe custody, custody is not part of the ordinary business of banking, or because receipt for such purposes involves an implied contract inconsistent wdth the assertion of lien, the lien never attaches to securities or articles in the banker's hands for safe custody (d). Nor does the lien attach to any money or security known to the banker to be affected by a trust or not to be the actual property of the Where securities are deposited which involve the customer {e). collection of coupons or interest, the question is which component part is received for safe custody, which for the exercise thereon of the banker's business (/'). Bills or money paid in to meet specific cheques or bills accepted Specific payable at the banker's are not subject to the lien (g). Whether P^^^'pose. securities deposited to cover a specific advance, and, after repa}^ment of that advance, remaining in the banker's hands, are subject to a general lien for a balance due to the banker, seems somewhat doubtful {h). Where, however, the security has been realised and produces .

(g)

Bock

Brandao

v.

Barrett (1846), 12 CI.

V. Gorrissen (1860),

30 L.

&

F. 787, jjer

Lord Campbell,

at p.

806



J. (CH.) 39.

JVylde v. Radford (1863), 33 L. J. (ch.) 51, per Ktndersley, V.-C, at p. 53. ISerrice Co., Johnston's Claim (1871), 6 Ch. App. 212, j^er James, L.J., at p. 217. (t) Misa V. Currie (1876), 1 App. Cas. 564. (r)

(s)

Re United

(a)

Re Bowes (1886). 33 Ch. D. 586., Mutton V. Peat. [1900] 2 Cli. 79. Brandao v. Barnett, supra, per Lord Campbei>l,

(6) (c)

at p.

803



Lucas

v.

Bornen

(1817), 7 Taunt. 279. (d) Brandao v. Barnett, supra; Leese v.

forms relating to custody by bank Forms, YoL II., p. 471.

oi"

Martin (1873), L. R. 17 Eq. 225. For valuables or documents, see Encyclopsedia of

(e) Ex parte Kingston, Re Gross (1871), 6 Ch. App. 632. (/) See Questions on Banking Practice, 5th ed., Question and Answer 999. Where bonds are deposited with a banker for him to cut off the coupons and But if the collect them, the Hen probably attaches to the bonds and coupons. bonds and coupons are deposited merely for safe keeping and the customer cuts off the coupons and hands them to the banker to collect, the lien attaches to the coupons when handed to the banker, but not to the bonds. [g) See note {n), p. 586, ante. {%) Doubted in Jones v. Peppercorne (1858), 28 L. J. (cH.) 158; in Willdnson v. London and County Banking Co. (1884), 1 T. L. R. 63, the House of Lords assumed that the customer was entitled to have back the securities in such a case independent of the state of account. In Re Bowes, supra, North, J., held an agreement that a policy of insurance was to be security for £2,000 inconsistent But in Re London and with a general lien for a further balance of £1,000. Glohe Finance Corporation, [1902] 2 Ch. 416, Buckley, J., held that securities deposited as cover for specified advances after discharge remaining in a banker's hands were liable to general lien. Compare JVolstenholme v. Sheffield Union Banking Co. (1886), 54 L. T. 746.