HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0070 and id is 1 raw text is: HALL V. FULLER
that, whether they procured the medical assistance to be given in the parish or out of
the parish, they are liable.
Littledale J. I am of the same opinion. Whenever any accident happens to a poor
person of such a serious nature as to render removal out of the parish dangerous or
improper, I think the law casts an undoubted obligation on that parish to administer
all necessary relief. If the pauper in this case had actually been taken to a house in
Heybridge, and resided there while the surgeon was attending her, that parish would
have been liable for her cure ; but it appears to me that, under the circumstances of
this case, she was improperly taken out of the parish ; and that any officer or inhabi-
tant taking her to another parish, where it was improper to take her, cannot by so
doing release the inhabitants of the former parish from the obligation. I think,
therefore, that this rule should be discharged.
Rule discharged.
[750] HALL AND ANOTHER against FULLER AND OTHERS. Saturday, June 10th,
1826. Where a check, drawn by a customer upon his banker for a sum of money
described in the body of the check in words and figures, was afterwards altered
by the holder, who substituted a larger sum for that mentioned in the check, but
in such a manner that no person in the ordinary course of business could observe
it, and the banker paid to the holder this larger sum : Held, that he could not
charge the customer for any thing beyond the sum for which the check was
originally drawn.
[S. C. 8 D. & R. 464 ; 4 L. J. K. B. 0. S. 297. Referred to, Scholfield v.
Londesborough, [1896] A. C. 522.]
Assumpsit to recover 1971. as money had and received by the defendants to the
use of the plaintiffs. At the trial before Abbott C.J. at the London sittings after
Hilary term 1824, the jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs, subject to the opinion
of this Court on the following case:
The plaintiffs are merchants in the City of London, having at the time of the
transaction in question an account with the defendants, as bankers. On the 25th or
26th of August 1823, Mr. S. Hill applied to J. Hall, one of the plaintiffs, for the loan
of a check for 31. stating at the time it was for a friend to send into the country, upon
which Mr. Hall drew and delivered to S. Hill the check upon the defendants, using
for that purpose one of the printed forms with which the defendants supply their
customers. The sum for which this check was drawn, was written by Hall in words
at length, in the body of the check, and also in figures, the latter being in the same
line with his signature. Mr. Hill had been induced to apply for the loan of the check
by one Wagstaff, who had applied to him for such a check, and Hill having obtained
it, handed it over to Wagstaff; Wagstaff expunged the dates, the figures, and the
words three pounds, and also the figures 31. Os. Od. and substituted the words two
hundred pounds and 2001. in figures, but in such a manner that no one in the ordinary
course of business could have observed it. The check so altered was presented by or
on ac-[751]-count of Wagstaff to the defendants for payment, on the 29th of August,
on which day the balance in their hands on the account of the plaintiffs, was only
1831. 15s. 5d. The defendants paid the amount of the check as altered, and having
a day or two afterwards received funds to cover the amount over paid on the 29th of
August, they claimed to retain the whole sum of 2001. on account of the check drawn
and paid under the foregoing circumstances.
F. Pollock for the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are entitled to recover the whole amount
of the check. First assuming that the defendants have not been guilty of any negligence,
the loss must still fall upon them, for the altered check was not the check of the
plaintiffs, and, therefore, the defendants paid the money without any authority. There
is no difference in principle between this case and any other forgery. Suppose the
body of a draft had been in the handwriting of the plaintiffs, but their signature had
been forged, there can be no doubt that if the bankers had paid such a draft they
would be liable. Or suppose that it was made payable to a special payee, and his
name had been forged, and the bankers paid it to the wrong person, they would have
been liable. There is no direct authority in our law upon the subject, but the very
point is discussed in Pothier's Treatise du Contrat du Change, part 1, c. 4, s. 99,
279
5 B. & C. 50.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0070&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)