DISTRICT COURT.

Globe, Volume XXI, Issue 1717, 21 August 1879, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

«. Thuesday, August 21. [Before His Honor Judge Ward.] His Honor took his seat at 10.30 a.m. PLEMIKO V B'OTH AND ANOTHER. His Honor delivered judgment in this case as follows : —ln this case the plaintiff sues the defendants for the balance due to him on s certain building contract, and the defendants plead in effect that they paid this balance to Messrs Twenty man and Cousins upon an order given to the latter (in consideration of an antecedent debt) by the plaintiff which order is in the following words :—" Christchurch, April 2nd, 1879 —To the chairman and committee Methodist Church, Bingsland. Pay Mestrs Twentyman and Cousin or order or demand the sum of two hundred and ten pounds or balance of contract. (Signed) J. L. Fi,em:ino." They aver also that they had notice of the order on the day it was made. In answer to this plea it is shown that plaintiff revoked his order three days after it we* ma-le by the following letter: —" To tho building committee'of the United Free Methodist Church, Bingeland—ln reference to an order given to Mosßrs Twentyman and Cousin for [the sum of two hundred and ten pounds, balance of contract. I hereby cancel same, and request you not to pay same to any one but myself. I am, &c, J. L. PtEMiNa.'* The sole question for the Court appears to be whether the order given in this case was revocable or not. It appears to me that in eqnity an order given by a debtor to his creditor upon a third person having monies of the debtor, to pay such monies to the creditor operates as an equitable assignment of the monies in question, and consequently cannot be revoked at tho pleasure of the assignor. An order to pay money to a third party on behalf of a creditor might be revocable ; not so an order to pay it to the creditor absolutely. In the case 'ex\parte South 3, Swanßton 392, Lord Eldon says :—" If a creditor gives an order on his debtor to pay a sum as discharge of his debt, and that order is shewn to the debtor it binds him," and this decision has been followed in Jones t Lavill 1 Dr G-. and Jo. 208. The defendants were bound to hold the monies due to plaintiff/on behalf of Messrs Twentyman and Cousin after receiving notice of tho order given by him in their favor. There will therefore be judgment for defendants with costs. Tho Court then rose.