Northern Banking Company Ltd v Carpenter

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1931
• Date: 01 January 1931
• Docket Number: (1926. No. 10,535.)
• Court: Supreme Court (Irish Free State)

[S. C., I.F.S.]

Northern Banking Co. Ltd

and

Carpenter

Bank's claim to - Deposit by husband of title deeds of wife's property with bank for safe custody - Deeds handed back to husband - Deeds re-deposited to secure a loan - Conflicting evidence as to knowledge of wife - Inferences to be drawn from evidence - Witness having no recollection of transaction - Witness refreshing his memory by reference to contemporaneous document - Admissibility of evidence - Necessity for wife having independent advice - Presumption of wife acting under influence of husband.

In February, 1913, a husband deposited with a bank for safe custody the title deeds of property owned by his wife. Some months later the husband went to the bank and was handed back the deeds, and gave a receipt for them, but did not take them away, as he then applied to the bank for an advance on overdraft, and offered as security the said deeds. The bank informed him that his wife ought to consult her solicitor, but he replied that she did not wish to do so. He represented to the bank that, although the property had been assigned to his wife, he himself had an interest in the property, as he had provided the purchase money. He also informed the bank that his wife was willing to join with him in depositing the deeds by way of security for the advance sought. The loan was then arranged to be given, if required. The wife was not a party to the transaction. No loan was then made. On 25th February, 1914, however (as alleged by the bank), both the husband and wife came to the bank, and the wife then made a deposit of her deeds for the purpose of securing her husband's account and all his liabilities to the bank, and M., the sub-manager of the branch of the bank at which the alleged transaction took place, accepted the deposit on behalf of the bank. large sum having become due to the bank by the husband, the bank brought an action against the wife, claiming a declaration that they were entitled to an equitable charge on the wife's property by virtue of the deposit of the title deeds with them by her on the 25th February, 1914, and to have an account taken of the amount due and payment thereof enforced. At the trial the only witness produced by the bank to prove the transaction was M., the sub-manager. He stated that he did not remember the interview of 25th February, 1914. A document, partly printed and partly written, stating that the husband and wife had on...