Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 20.pdf/150

 NOTES OF RECENT CASES

301

NOTES OF THE MOST IMPORTANT RECENT CASES COMPILED BY THE EDITORS OF THE NATIONAL REPORTER SYSTEM AND ANNOTATED BY SPECIALISTS IN THE SEVERAL SUBJECTS • Copies of the pamphlet Reporters containing full reports of any of these decisions may be secured from the West Publishing Company, St. Panl, Minnesota, at 25 cents each. In ordering, the title of the desired case should be given as well as the citation of volume and pace of the Reporter in which it is printed.)

ATTORNEY AND CLIENT. (Imputation of Knowledge of Attorney to Client.) Ky. Ct. of App. — In the case of Sebald v. Citizens' Deposit Bank, 105 S.W. Rep. 130, the court of appeals of Kentucky was called upon to decide the question whether knowledge acquired by an attorney in his professional capacity relative to the insolvency of a client should be imputed to another client. The same attorney was employed by both the maker and payee of a note. The maker was insolvent. Of this fact, it seemed that his attorney had knowledge, and it was contended that the payee was chargeable with notice which should have been imparted to the surety, and that a failure to do this operated as a discharge. It was held, however, that for the attorney to give out such a knowledge to another client would be a. violation of confidence and of legal ethics which the court would not presume. BANKING. (Checks.) Eng. Curtice v.f Lon don, City & Midland Bank. Court of Appeal 23, Times Law Reports 594. This case raises questions of great interest to bankers and their customers, the main question being the right of a customer to countermand payment of a check by a telegram. It appeared that the plaintiff bought certain horses on October 31, 1906, paying for them by a check for £63 on the defendant bank. While on his way home he sent a telegram to the bank directing them not to pay the check. The telegram was sent after bank hours, and the County Court Judge found that it was put into the bank letter-box, and that it did not in fact, come into the hands of the bank officials until the morning of November a, whereas it ought to have come to their hands on the morning of November i. On November i, the check was specially presented to the bank by post through another bank with a telegraph form attached, the defendant bank being desired to wire whether the check was all right. The check was in fact paid by the defend ants before they had had any intimation of the attempt to stop it. They having so paid it, the

plaintiff sued them to recover the amount, the form of action being for money had and received by the defendants to the use of the plaintiff. The County Court 'Judge gave judgment in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the telegram was put in the letter-box of the bank on October 31, and was overlooked by the cashier in clearing the bojc on November i, and that defendants must be taken to have received it when they opened their letters for that day; a banker receiving a telegram pur porting to stop a check disregarded it at his peril, and if defendants in fact received, or must be taken to have received, plaintiff's telegram before the check was presented for payment, they were responsible for having paid it. The Divisional Court (Mr. Justice Darling and Mr. Justice A. T. Lawrence) held that there might be a countermand of payment by telegram, but upon the question whether in this particular case there had or had not been a countermand the Court were divided in opinion. Mr. Justice A. T. Lawrence was of opinion that there was no countermand until the 'contents of the plaintiff's telegram came to the knowledge of the manager of the defendants' branch, and that the defendants, having paid the check according to its tenor and without, in fact, having notice of any countermand, had done noth ing improper, and that an action for money had and received would not lie. Mr. Justice Darling, however, was of opinion that the countermand must be held to have been communicated to the manager on the morning of November I, when the letters taken from the letter-box were opened, and that the defendants could not be heard to say that the countermand was not effective, as it was due to the default of their own servants that the contents of the telegram had not come to the knowledge of their manager. In these circum stances Mr. Justice Lawrence, as the junior Judge, withdrew his opinion, and the appeal was dis missed. The defendants appealed. The Appeal Court allowed the appeals and directed judgment to be entered for the defendants. In giving judg