1840. บ. At the trial before Lord Denman, at the last Warwick Spring assizes, the following facts appeared. The National Provincial Bank of England was established ROBERTSON under the authority of the Joint Stock Bank Act, SHEWARD. 7 G. 4. c. 46., carried on business at Birmingham and other places by means of branch banks, but having a general board of management under a board of directors, at which plaintiff was manager. The note in question was given at the branch bank at Birmingham, to secure advances to be made by the bank to C. and B., at which time W. Elrich was the local manager at Birmingham. In March 1837 C. and B. became bankrupts. 3d April 1837 the following demand was served upon the defendants, addressed to the defendants and William Chapman. "National Provincial Bank, Birmingham, 3d April 1837. "Gentlemen,- We request payment for the note given by you to the bank at three months after demand, as security for the account of Messrs. Chapman and Brown. (Signed) "H. Rotham, E. Lloyd, joint managers." It was contended for the defendants that the demand of payment was insufficient to support an action at the suit of the plaintiff, assuming him to be the payee, and that, supposing the demand to be sufficient, the action should be brought by the bank, in the name of plaintiff suing as their public officer. But that the action should have been brought in the name of Elrich, who, being the manager at Birmingham, where the whole of the transaction took place, must be taken to be the manager intended by the note. The learned judge refused to nonsuit the plaintiffs, being of opinion that there was evidence to go to the jury that he was the manager intended in the note, and that the defendants had not raised the question as to the plaintiff's being the public officer of the company, that fact not having been traversed by 1840. ROBERTSON v. SHEWARD. the pleas. The jury having found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 11357. Channell Serjt., in Easter term, obtained a rule nisi for a new trial, on the ground of misdirection. name. Goulburn Serjt. now shewed cause. The plaintiff was manager of the National Provincial Bank of England at the time the note was made, and was the payee of the note: the action, therefore, was properly brought in his The bank could have sued in the name of their public officer if they had been the legal owners of the note, but the property in the note was in the plaintiff in his individual capacity, as a trustee for the bank. The action was therefore properly brought in the name of plaintiff: Pease v. Hirst. (a) There is no pretence for saying that Elrich was the manager designated in the note: he was not the manager of the National Provincial Bank of England, but merely a clerk managing a particular branch of that establishment. Channell Serjt., in support of the rule. It appears upon the evidence that the plaintiff was the manager of the London establishment, but from the circumstances of the transaction it is clear that Elrich, the manager at Birmingham, where the whole transaction took place, was the manager designated in the note. This view of the case is corroborated by the subsequent conduct of the parties, the demand of payment being made, not by or on behalf of plaintiff, but by Rotham and Lloyd, the successors of Elrich. As the plaintiff sues in his own right, and not as the public officer of the bank, the defendants could raise the question as to his being the payee only by denying that he was the manager of (a) 10 B. & C. 122. ; 5 M. & R. 88. the National Provincial Bank of England, according to the true intent and meaning of the note, as they have done by their third plea. TINDAL C. J. The principal objection in this case arises upon the third plea, which is, in effect, a plea that the action is not brought in the right name. It appears that there is a bank called the National Provincial Bank of England, having its principal establishment in London, with branches in different parts of the country, not distinguished by any separate name, but all or in part of the same undertaking, as if a banker in London were to hire rooms in a distant market town, and transact business there by a clerk on market days. There is nothing but the date of the note, at Birmingham, upon which any doubt can be attempted to be raised; but it distinctly appeared that plaintiff was the general manager of the undertaking. I think, therefore, that the plaintiff is entitled to retain his verdict upon the third plea. To raise the other point, it should have been pleaded, that the National Provincial Bank of England was a copartnership or company within 7 G. 4. c. 46., and that the plaintiff was not the registered public officer. COLTMAN J. The only substantial question between these parties, namely, whether the note was to remain as a security only until certain deeds should have been deposited, was decided in favour of the plaintiff. Upon the objection that Elrich, the person who received the note from the defendants, ought to be considered as the payee of that note and not Robertson, the general manager of the establishment, I think the jury drew the proper conclusion from the evidence. With respect to the demand of payment being made by Rotham and Lloyd, 1840. ROBERTSON v. SHEWARD. 1840. ROBERTSON v. SHEWARD. and not by plaintiff, I think that there is an implied power in them as the chief clerks of the local branch to call upon persons to pay up. ERSKINE J. It is contended that the affirmation of the issue raised by the first plea is not proved, and that the plaintiff has also failed upon the third plea, the note having been given not to the plaintiff but to Elrich. If there had been two distinct banks of the same name, the one carried on in London and the other at Birmingham, the circumstance of the transaction taking place at Birmingham, and being there negotiated by the Birmingham manager, would have strongly tended to shew that Elrich was the person to whom the note had been made payable. But the plaintiff was the manager of the whole establishment, which, though under the superintendence of a board of directors in London, was effectively carried on in the country; as in London this establishment could not carry on business as bankers, 7 G. 4. c. 46. s. 3. The description in the note therefore applies better to the plaintiff than to any other person. It is said that this question as to which manager was intended in the note was not left to the jury, but the learned judge was not requested so to leave it, nor was any such point raised in the observations which the learned counsel addressed to the jury. MAULE J. I think that the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict upon the issue raised upon the first plea. It was not even put to the jury, that Robertson was not the manager of the bank intended by the plea. If that question had been submitted to the jury by the counsel for the defendants, they would have had no hesitation in finding a verdict against him. The note evidently contemplates one manager only. The third plea is an argumentative denial of the making of the note. It is said that Robertson, not being the payee of the note by name, it should have appeared that he was the public officer of the bank. It is sufficient to say, that that objection does not arise upon the present state of the record. Rule discharged. 1840. ROBERTSON บ. SHEWARD. Ex parte TUCKER, in the Matter of SARAH INMAN, deceased. termine power to make an appointment in IN N Easter term, Manning Serjt. obtained a rule calling The jurisupon William Southcote Inman and Anna Victoria diction to deLittle, to shew cause why a writ of prohibition should whether a not issue to the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, to married prohibit that court from proceeding to require William woman has Tucker, John Inman Tucker, and John James to appear in the said court, and to leave in the registry thereof the original will of Sarah Inman deceased, and from proceeding to require them to shew cause to that court why letters of administration, with the said will annexed, of the goods, chattels, and credits of the said Sarah Inman should not be granted to the said William Southcote Inman and Anna Victoria Little. This rule was obtained upon an affidavit which stated the following facts: Previously to the marriage of George Inman, clerk, (a) And see Langdale's 12 Co. Rep. 50.; Cases of Prohibition, ib. 76.; Edward's Case, 13 Co. Rep. 9.; Kenn's Case, 7 Co. Rep. 44. b.; Bonsey v. Lee, 3 Lev. 72.; Fareley's Case, Cro. Jac. 36.; post, 536. Although the Ecclesias tical Courts have jurisdiction in the nature of a will, appears to belong to the Queen's temporal courts. (a) |