New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-03-25
THE LIVERPOOL BANK CASE.
OPINION OF THE VICE CHANCELLOR.
Co.one! Case Directs an Appeal to be Taken

| On the fourth of March, the case of Messrs.
A. Thoms on g. Company versus the Bank Of
Liverpool was decided by the Vice Chancel.
lor in favor of plaintiffs. From this de-
cision Colonel Case, Receiver of the First
National Bank, who represents the creditors
of that bankrupt concern, has directed his
solicitors in Liverpool to take an appeal.
report of the case having been published
in the Times, the following note was sent to
that journal, requesting the publication oi
the appended letter to the Liverpool solic-
itors. The following is the report of the
case:
This is a case of some commercial import.
ance. The plaintiffs, Messrs. A. Thomson q
Co., are merchants at New Orleans, in the
United States: the defendants are MIR.
Simpson (WhO was sued as the registered
! public officer of the Bank of Liverpool, but
against whom the bill was dismissed) and
the First National Bank OF New Orleans. In
April, 1867, the plaintiffs. being desirous OF
making remittances to England. applied to
the manager of the New Orleans Bank, and
on his representation that the bank kept
| large funds at the Bank of Liverpool for the
purpose of meeting bills on England, pur-
chased bill for $4,000, drawn by the New
Orleans Bank upon the Bank of Liver
pool, and made payable at sixty days
| after sight, to the order of A. Thomson &
| Co. The bill was forwarded by Messrs.
Thomson to their London Bankers, the
London Joint-Stock Bank for collection, and
| by them ON the thirteenth Of May it was left
| with the Bank of Liverpool for acceptance.
That night the Bank Of Liverpool received q
! telegram announcing that the New Orleans
| Bank had stopped payment, and thereupon
refused to accept the bill, which was &C
cordingly protested for non-payment, and
| on the twenty seventh of July, On arriving
protested for non-payment. The funds in
the hands of the Bank of Liverpool were at
| both dates sufficient to meet the bill, and
| an Injunction having been moved tor, after
the institution of this suit, they paid the
sum of $4,000 into court out of these funds to
| provide for Messrs. ThomsOns' claims; and
had the bill dismissed as against them,
Mr.. Dickinson, @. c., Mr.. Cracknal and
Mr.. Bel amin appeared for the plaintiffs, and
| contended that, BY the representation OF The
manager OF the New Orleans bank, and by
the course OF dealing between the banks,
the funds in the hands of the Bank of Liy-
erpool had been specifically appropriated to
meet the bill, and that the representation in
itself amounted to an equitable assignment
Of them in the plaintiffs g favor.
Mr. Fry, @. c., and Dir. Robinson, who ap-
peared for the New Orleans bank, contended
that there could be no appropriation of a
fund, unless it and the objects of the appro-
priation were specifically mentioned, and
statements which could not be held to bind
the funds in the possession of the Bank of
Liverpool.
The Vice-Chancellor. without calling for a
reply, said the plaintiffs were entitled to the
relief they sought upon well established
principle of equity. The case made by the
bill was one Of appropriation and equitable
assignment. but strictly speaking, it was
neither the one or the other. The plaintiffs
purchased the bills in question on the faith
of the representations made to them by the
managers of the Bank of New Orleans, that
there would be balance in the hands of
the Bank of Liverpool, applicable to pay.
meat of the bills, and the plaintiffs were
therefore now entitled to prevent the Bank
of New Orleans from removing that balance.
It was to be observed that the question in
the case as brought before the court, was one
entirely between the plaintiffs and the draw
ers of the bills to whom the plaintiffs paid the
money. No third parties rights INTERVIEWED.
There was no question as to any claim by
the Bank of Liverpool or as to the right OF
any one but the plaintiffs TO stop the with.
drawal of the fund. It was plain upon the
evidence that when the plaintiffs paid their
money there was representation made to
them that there would be funds applicable
to the payment of the bills. Mr.. Forbes,
the ageat of the Bank of New Orleans,
which was the only real defendant, said in
his evidence that he believed the plaintiffs
purchased the bills solely on the faith of
the representations to that effect made to
them by him, and to the effect that holders
of the bills would have the benefit of the
funds RENTED by the bank to the Bank of
Liverpool, and appropriated to meet them :.
In his cross examination he stated that he
said he believed the funds would be sufficient
for the purpose, and that the holders of
the bills would be paid out of them. In his
Reorganization he said he thought it would
be breach of faith to divert the funds from
that destination. By these statements of
their agent the Bank of New Orleans was
bound, nor could they in the face of these
statements be allowed to withdraw those
funds from the Bank OF Liverpool without
satisfying the plaintiffs claim. In the case
of Hammersley VS.. DeBiel," Lord Gotten
ham said that representation made by one
person for the purpose of influencing the
conduct of another, and acted on by him,
would in general be sufficient to entitle him
to the assistance of court of equity for the
purpose of compelling the other to make
good their presentation. Upon that principle
he held the plaintiffs were in the present case
entitled to decree. If the representation
to the plaintiff was-as in fact. it was when
they paid the money-that there would be
funds of the New Orleans Bank in the hands
of their Liverpool correspondents to meet
these bills at maturity. and if there then
were such funds, the Bank of New Orleans
would not be permitted to withdraw those
funds which they had represented to be ap-
plicable to the payment of the bills. There
must therefore. be the declaration prayed
by the plaintiffs. that those funds should
be applied in discharge of their claims, and
the defendants, the Bank of New Orleans,
must pay the costs of the suit.
REoEIvRE's OFFICE, ,
First National Bank of New Orleans
New Orleans March q, 1870.
I,a lie Edital. Of the Nelr Ollenas liaaas-