The Sun.
London, England, 1823-05-19 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE,

COURT OF ICING'S BENCH, MAY 17•

THE EAST INDIA COMPANY V.BARCLAY,TRITTOK,AND CO.
This was an action by the East India Company against the
firm of Barclay and Co., bankers, to recover it sum of 35,000/.,
which the plaintiffs had paid, as they alleged, on the faith
of the defendants' indemnity, and which afterwards they
were obliged to pay over again, in consequence of the de-
cision of a Court of law, that the original payment was
improperly made. In 1809 a gentleman named Hope, who
had been long resident at Madras, determined on returning
to England ; and in order more safely to transmit his effects,
converted them into bills drawn on the East India Com-
pany by the Presidency of Madras, and remitted the bills to a
gentleman named Card, residing in London, and carrying on
business in partnership with a person named Davis. He took
his own passage in a ship called the Jane Duchess of' Gordon,
which was lost, and in which he unfortunately perished. Be-
fore his fate was known, the bills reached the hands of Mr.
Card, who had been 'accustomed to act for him under a
_power
of attorney, ana who then kept cash with Barclay and Co., at
his bankers. Mr. Card took on himself to endorse the bills
to Barclay and Co., " by procuration- se Mr. Hope," in
order that they might obtain payment from the Company
when the bills. should become due, but without receiving
from them any value. Messrs. Barclay and Company, in
their turn, endorsed the bills, which, with these endorsements,
were presented to the Company for payment; and the Com-
pany, finding that Mr. Card had a power of attorney, which
they conceived gave him authority to endorse as Mr. Hope's
*pm, paid the bills; and Mr. Card received the amount
for which they were drawn. After the proceeds had thus
passed into the hands of Mr. Card, who, with his partner,
subsequently became insolvent, news was received of the mis-
fortune which terminated Mr. Hope's life. His next of kin,
Mr. James Murray, obtained administration of his estate and
effects, and demanded of the East India Company payment
of the bills, on the ground that Mr. Card had no authority
to endorse them, and that therefore the payment made to
Mr. Card's endorsees was made by the Company in their
own wrong. The administrator enforced this claim by action,
and ultimately succeeded, on the ground that Mr Ciird
had exceeded his authority, and therefore the Company
were still liable to pay the amount of the Mi. Upon this de-
cision, the Company paid the hills over again to Mr. Murray,
and sought by the present action to obtain repayment from
Barclay and Co, who, they contended, had, by endorsing the
bills given such sanction to the act of Mr. Card as rendered
them liable fbr its results.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE left two questions of fact to the
jury ; first, whether the East India Company were induced to
pay the bills by the defendants' endorsement, or by the en-
dorsement of Mr. Card, and the power of attorney under which
he professedly acted ; and secondly, whether the defendants had
any interest in the bills, or were merely the agents for Mr.
Card in the transaction.

On this direction, the jury found—first, that the Company
did not pay the bills on the faith of the endorseMent of the de-
fendants ; and secondly, that the defendants were merely agents,
and had no property in the bills, or interest in their proceeds.
It was agreed that the finding should be taken as a special
verdict, the legal erect of which may be solemnly determined by
the Court.