Foley v Hill (1848) 2 HLC 28, 9 ER 1002 is a judicial decision of the House of Lords in relation to the fundamental nature of a bank account. Together with Joachimson v Swiss Bank Corporation [1921] 3 KB 110 it forms part of the foundational cases relating to English banking law and the nature of a bank's relationship with its customer in relation to the account.[1]
The case decided that a banker does not hold the sums in a bank account on trust for its customer. Instead the relationship between them is that of debtor and creditor. When the customer deposits money in the account it becomes the bank's money, and the bank's obligation to repay an equivalent sum (and any agreed interest) to the customer or the customer's order.[2]
The decision was crucial to the modern evolution of banking. Had the appellant's argument that the bank should be treated as a trustee succeeded then a bank would not be entitled to use the sums deposited with it for lending to other parties because of the rule against trustee's making a profit out of the trust property.[3]
Facts
Edward Thomas Foley and Sir Edward Scott (who was not a party to the action) were owners of collieries in Staffordshire. They had jointly opened an account with the defendant bank. In April 1829 £6117 10s was transferred from that joint account to a separate account in the sole name of Foley. The bank sent a letter enclosing the receipt and agreeing to pay 3 per cent interest on the sum. From 1829 until 1834, when the joint account was closed, Foley's share of the profits of the collieries was paid by cheques drawn on the joint account by the agents managing the collieries. These cheques were paid in cash or by bills drawn by them on their London bankers in favour of Foley, and none of them were paid into his separate account. The only amount ever credited to that account was the initial £6117 10s together with interest calculated by the bank up to 25 December 1831, but not afterwards.[4]
Foley filed a bill in equity in January 1838 against the banking, claiming that an account should be taken of not only the initial deposit but also all other sums received by the bank for Foley on his private account since April 1829, with interest on the same at the rate of 3 per cent per annum; and also an account of all sums properly paid by them for or to the use of Foley on his said account since that day.[4]
The case came initially before the Vice-Chancellor, Sir James Wigram, who ordered an account. That decision was appealed to the Lord Chancellor, Lord Lyndhurst, who reversed the decision. The matter was then appealed to the House of Lords where, unusually, Lord Lyndhurst sat on the appeal against his own decision (although by this time he had been replaced by Lord Cottenham as Lord Chancellor). After hearing counsel for the appellant Foley, their Lordships told counsel for the bank that they did not need to address them and promptly dismissed the appeal.
House of Lords
The House of Lords held that because there was no equitable relationship the defence based upon limitation periods succeeded. Giving the main judgment, the Lord Cottenham LC said the following.[5]
Money, when paid into a bank, ceases altogether to be the money of the principal; it is by then the money of the banker, who is bound to return an equivalent by paying a similar sum to that deposited with him when he is asked for it. The money paid into a banker’s is money known by the principal to be placed there for the purpose of being under the control of the banker; it is then the banker’s money; he is known to deal with it as his own; he makes what profit of it he can, which profit he retains to himself, paying back only the principal, according to the custom of bankers in some places, or the principal and a small rate of interest, according to the custom of bankers in other places. The money placed in custody of a banker is, to all intents and purposes, the money of the banker, to do with it as he pleases; he is guilty of no breach of trust in employing it; he is not answerable to the principal if he puts it into jeopardy, if he engages in a hazardous speculation; he is not bound to keep it or deal with it as the property of his principal; but he is, of course, answerable for the amount, because he has contracted, having received that money, to repay to the principal, when demanded, a sum equivalent to that paid into his hands. That has been the subject of discussion in various cases, and that has been established to be the relative situation of banker and customer. That being established to be the relative situations of banker and customer, the banker is not an agent or factor, but he is a debtor.
Lord Brougham, Lord Campbell and Lord Lyndhurst gave concurring opinions.
Significance
The decision has been applied many times since, and has never been seriously questioned.[6][7] Although various earlier cases had also applied the principle that the relationship between banker and customer was one of debtor and creditor,[8] this was the first time that the House of Lords, as the highest court in the land, had affirmed the position.
↑ See for example: Parker v Marchant 1 Phillips 360; Potts v Glegg 16 Mees & W 321; Devaynes v Noble (1816) 1 Mer 529. In 1832 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Law of Bailments, stated (at page 66): "[i]n ordinary cases of deposits of money with banking corporations, or bankers, the transaction amounts to a mere loan or mutuum, and the bank is to restore, not the same money, but an equivalent sum, whenever it is demanded."
Related Research Articles
Fractional-reserve banking is the system of banking operating in almost all countries worldwide, under which banks that take deposits from the public are required to hold a proportion of their deposit liabilities in liquid assets as a reserve, and are at liberty to lend the remainder to borrowers. Bank reserves are held as cash in the bank or as balances in the bank's account at the central bank. The country's central bank determines the minimum amount that banks must hold in liquid assets, called the "reserve requirement" or "reserve ratio". Most commercial banks hold more than this minimum amount as excess reserves.
Cheque clearing or bank clearance is the process of moving cash from the bank on which a cheque is drawn to the bank in which it was deposited, usually accompanied by the movement of the cheque to the paying bank, either in the traditional physical paper form or digitally under a cheque truncation system. This process is called the clearing cycle and normally results in a credit to the account at the bank of deposit, and an equivalent debit to the account at the bank on which it was drawn, with a corresponding adjustment of accounts of the banks themselves. If there are not enough funds in the account when the cheque arrived at the issuing bank, the cheque would be returned as a dishonoured cheque marked as non-sufficient funds.
Barclays Bank Ltd v Quistclose Investments Ltd[1968] UKHL 4 is a leading property, unjust enrichment and trusts case, which invented a new species of proprietary interest in English law. A "Quistclose trust" arises when an asset is given to somebody for a specific purpose and if, for whatever reason, the purpose for the transfer fails, the transferor may take back the asset.
Tacking is a legal concept arising under the common law relating to competing priorities between two or more security interests arising over the same asset. The concept is best illustrated by way of example.
Bank A lends a first advance to the borrower, which is secured by a mortgage over the borrower's property. The mortgage is expressed to secure this advance and any future advances.
Bank B subsequently lends more money to the borrower and takes a second ranking mortgage over the same property.
Bank A then subsequently lends a second advance to the borrower, relying on its original mortgage.
Devaynes v Noble (1816) 35 ER 781, best known for the claim contained in Clayton's case, created a rule, or more precisely common law presumption, in relation to the distribution of money from a bank account. The rule is based upon the deceptively simple notion of first-in, first-out to determine the effect of payments from an account, and normally applies in English Law in the absence of evidence of any other intention. Payments are presumed to be appropriated to debts in the order in which the debts are incurred.
Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National plc and Others[2009] UKSC 6is a judicial decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court relating to bank charges in the United Kingdom, with reference to the situation where a bank account holder goes into unplanned overdraft.
A bank is a financial institution that accepts deposits from the public and creates a demand deposit while simultaneously making loans. Lending activities can be directly performed by the bank or indirectly through capital markets.
The New York State Banking Department was created by the New York Legislature on April 15, 1851, with a chief officer to be known as the Superintendent. The New York State Banking Department was the oldest bank regulatory agency in the United States.
Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd[1988] UKHL 12 is a foundational English unjust enrichment case. The House of Lords unanimously established that the basis of an action for money had and received is the principle of unjust enrichment, and that an award of restitution is subject to a defence of change of position. This secured unjust enrichment as the third pillar in English law of the law of obligations, along with contract and tort. It has been called a landmark decision.
United Kingdom banking law refers to banking law in the United Kingdom, to control the activities of banks.
A deposit account is a bank account maintained by a financial institution in which a customer can deposit and withdraw money. Deposit accounts can be savings accounts, current accounts or any of several other types of accounts explained below.
Re Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA [1998] AC 214 is a UK insolvency law case, concerning the taking of a security interest over a company's assets and priority of creditors in a company winding up.
Chase Manhattan Bank NA v Israel-British Bank (London) Ltd [1981] Ch 105 is an English trusts law case, concerning constructive trusts. It held that a trust arose to protect a payment made under a mistake, with the benefit of a proprietary remedy. This is seen important for the question of what response, personal or proprietary, may come from a claim in unjust enrichment.
Banque Belge pour L’Etranger v Hambrouck [1921] 1 KB 321 is an English trusts law case concerning the common law remedies for receipt of trust property.
Barclays Bank Ltd v W J Simms, Son and Cooke (Southern) Ltd [1980] 1 QB 677, [1979] 3 All ER 522 was a decision of the High Court of Justice relating to the recovery of a payment mistakenly made by a bank after the customer had countermanded the cheque.
United Dominions Trust Ltd v Kirkwood [1966] 2 QB 431 was a decision of the Court of Appeal relating to what constitutes "banking business" as a matter of English law.
National Westminster Bank Ltd v Halesowen Presswork & Assemblies Ltd [1972] AC 785 is a decision of the House of Lords in relation to a banker's right to combine accounts under English law. It is the leading English case and a banker's right to combine accounts, and also an important decision relating to insolvency set-off.
Under English law, a bank has a general right to combine accounts where a customer has multiple accounts with the same bank. The right has been recognised since at least 1860. However it was not until 1975 in the House of Lords decision in National Westminster Bank Ltd v Halesowen Presswork & Assemblies Ltd [1972] AC 785 that it was finally determined that this was a type of set-off right rather than anything related to the banker's lien. Typically the right will be exercised where one account is overdrawn and the other is in credit so that the bank can secure full repayment of overdraft without the need to take any further action with respect to the customer. The broad rationale is that separate numbered accounts are set up for administrative convenience only, but the legal duty upon a bank to "account" to its customers for the sums held by it only extends to the net sum.
Joachimson v Swiss Bank Corporation [1921] 3 KB 110 is a judicial decision of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales in relation to the fundamental nature of the legal relationship between banker and customer. Together with Foley v Hill (1848) 2 HLC 28 it forms part of the foundational cases relating to English banking law and the nature of a bank's relationship with its customer in relation to the account.
Barclays Bank plc v Quincecare Ltd [1992] 4 All ER 363 is a judicial decision of High Court of Justice of England and Wales in relation to the banker-customer relationship, and in particular in connection with the bank's duties in relation to payment instructions which give rise, or ought to give rise, to a suspicion of fraud.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
