Jones, Ltd. sued Waring & Gillow, Ltd. to recover £5,000 after a fraud. B owed Waring & Gillow £5,000 and fraudulently convinced Jones to pay deposits totaling £5,000 to pay off his debt. Jones drew checks to B, who delivered them to Waring & Gillow without notice of the fraud. The House of Lords ruled that as payees, Waring & Gillow could not claim status as holders in due course and must return the £5,000 to Jones.
Jones, Ltd. sued Waring & Gillow, Ltd. to recover £5,000 after a fraud. B owed Waring & Gillow £5,000 and fraudulently convinced Jones to pay deposits totaling £5,000 to pay off his debt. Jones drew checks to B, who delivered them to Waring & Gillow without notice of the fraud. The House of Lords ruled that as payees, Waring & Gillow could not claim status as holders in due course and must return the £5,000 to Jones.
Jones, Ltd. sued Waring & Gillow, Ltd. to recover £5,000 after a fraud. B owed Waring & Gillow £5,000 and fraudulently convinced Jones to pay deposits totaling £5,000 to pay off his debt. Jones drew checks to B, who delivered them to Waring & Gillow without notice of the fraud. The House of Lords ruled that as payees, Waring & Gillow could not claim status as holders in due course and must return the £5,000 to Jones.
Jones, Ltd. v. Waring & Gillow, Ltd. [1926] A. C. 670.
In this case B, indebted to the defendants in the sum of £5000, and having no means of paying, fraudulently persuaded the plaintiff corporation to sign an agree- ment making it agent for the sale of motor cars and requiring a £5000 deposit. On objection by the plaintiff to paying this sum to B, the latter told the plaintiff that the defendants were his principals and suggested that the money be paid to the defendants. Checks for £2000 and £3000 were drawn by plaintiff, delivered to B, who in turn delivered to the de- fendants in payment of his debt. Subsequently the plaintiff gave a check for £5000 directly to the defendants in exchange for the others. The de- fendants, without notice of the fraud, cashed the check, and returned to B goods which they held as security. On discovery of the fraud the plaintiff sued to recover the £5000. A judgment for the plaintiff in the King's Bench Division was reversed by the Court of Appeal. On appeal by the plaintiff to the House of Lords, held, all the Law Lords concurring on point, that as defendants were payees they could not be holders in due course