: Mr Race was a clerk at the Bank of England who refused to pay on demand when Millerpresented the Banks note. Miller was an innkeeper who had unknowingly taken the note aspayment from a lodger who had stolen the note from the mails.
: The original owner (Mr Finney, whos note it was that was stolen from the mail and given toMiller) did not have sufficient property in the note to entitle him to recover in the present action.
: For money to work efficiently it should change hands dozensof times or more, and banknotes (and by extension other negotiable instruments) should be treated as such (money, wouldntbe efficient if evidence of title was required). As it is to change hands so many times, invokingcontract defences and putting the present possessor of the moneys title at risk would beirresponsible and unfair.
: This case established perhaps the most important exception to nemo dat, money usedas currency enables buyers in good faith to obtain good title even though the seller doesnt havegood title.Another important exception to nemo dat is clear in Farquharson Brothers & Co v King & Co...
: Timber merchants who store imported imported timber in commercial docks gave authorityto Mr Capon to sign delivery orders for the firm, authorizing him to accept all transfer or deliveryorders which should be signed on the merchants behalf by Mr Capon whose signature should besubjoined. Capon began a series of frauds, including selling to King & Co (respondents who wereacting in good faith) under a false name/address and appropriating the proceeds. First court gives infavour of plaintiffs, Court of Appeal gives in favour of defendants, plaintiffs appeal.
: Judge allows appeal, giving in favour of original plaintiffs.
: The timber merchants were allowed to deny their agents authority to sell because if a servantsteals his masters goods the people who receive those goods innocently shouldnot be able to set upa title against the master as a thief can give no title whatever. No representation sufficient to foundan estoppel could be found
: Re: Agency... The general rule of nemo dat applies unless the non owner (agent) sellswith the authority or with the consent of the owner. Re: Estoppel... The general rule of nemo datapplies unless the owner of goods is by his conduct (Could include estoppel by representation orestoppel by negligence) precluded from denying the sellers authority to sell. For estoppels tosucceed, see significance bit of Moorgate case note.The case Moorgate Mercantile Co Ltd v Twitchings outlines when an owner should be estopped fromasserting their title.
: Moorgate let a car on hire-purchase to McL. Because of the continual risk that a person whoobtains possession of a vehicle in pursuance of a hire-purchase agreement will wrongfully sell thevehicle, the finance companies and car dealers set up a self-help organisation called HPI. Moorgatewould normally have registered the agreement with HPI but didnt. In breach of the agreement, McLsold the vehicle to Twitchings who took the precaution of checking the HPI as to whether the vehiclewas subject to a hire-purchase agreement. Moorgate claimed damages for conversion, Twitchings