Skip to content


The Official Assignee of Madras Vs. J.W. Irwin - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectBanking
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in6Ind.Cas.250
AppellantThe Official Assignee of Madras
RespondentJ.W. Irwin
Excerpt:
banker and customer - remittance to banker to purchase shares--failure of banker to purchase shares--failure of bank--trust. - - he sent them two cheques wherewith to purchase shares in certain rubber companies, and clearly he did not intend, to make them his bankers for the amount remitted, for he told them if they could not get all the shares he wanted at once, they should cash only one of the cheques. 2. they cashed only one cheque, bought some shares and failed before completing the purchase. he is clearly entitled to it. 4. i quite agree and only wish to add that it was clearly a mistake on my part in putting down this case as of the group of cases in which in my opinion the claim should be disallowed instead of including it in the other group of cases in which i held the claim..........claimant irwin was not a customer of messrs arbuth not & co. he sent them two cheques wherewith to purchase shares in certain rubber companies, and clearly he did not intend, to make them his bankers for the amount remitted, for he told them if they could not get all the shares he wanted at once, they should cash only one of the cheques.2. they cashed only one cheque, bought some shares and failed before completing the purchase. the uncashed cheque was returned to the claimant, and he now claims the unspent balance of the other. he is clearly entitled to it. there is nothing to suggest that the relationship of banker and customer was created at any time between the claimant and messrs. arbuthnot & co. they were in the position of his stock brokers for a particular transaction and his.....
Judgment:

Miller and Munro, JJ.

1. In this ease we are agreed, that the learned Commissioner was right. The claimant Irwin was not a customer of Messrs Arbuth not & Co. He sent them two cheques wherewith to purchase shares in certain rubber companies, and clearly he did not intend, to make them his bankers for the amount remitted, for he told them if they could not get all the shares he wanted at once, they should cash only one of the cheques.

2. They cashed only one cheque, bought some shares and failed before completing the purchase. The uncashed cheque was returned to the claimant, and he now claims the unspent balance of the other. He is clearly entitled to it. There is nothing to suggest that the relationship of banker and customer was created at any time between the claimant and Messrs. Arbuthnot & Co. They were in the position of his stock brokers for a particular transaction and his money never became theirs to use and re-pay.

3. This appeal must be dismissed with costs out of the estate.

Abdur Rahim, J.

4. I quite agree and only wish to add that it was clearly a mistake on my part in putting down this case as of the group of cases in which in my opinion the claim should be disallowed instead of including it in the other group of cases in which I held the claim should be allowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //