BANK LITIGATION

Evening Star, Issue 17921, 17 March 1922, Page 7

BANK LITIGATION

RUSSIAN MERCHANT’S LOSS. Early iu January judgment was given by Mr Justice Kocho in England in an action which brought to the plaintiff, a Russian merchant named llatnor, no greater consolation thru judicial sympathy, Tho claim was lor £27,000 with interest. The plaintiff had an account in 1917 with the Moscow Industrial Bank, which had large sums standing to its credit with the defendants, the London Joint City and Midland Bank. Ho wished to transfer his money to a Finnish bank, at Helsingfors, and it was arranged that the transfer should bo effected by tho Moscow bank’s directing tho London bank to place £27,030 to tho credit of hto plaintiff with the Finnish hank. Thereupon the Moscow bank wrote to the Loudon hank: — Petrograd, 12/25 Dec., 1917.

Dear Sirs, —By order of Mr Raul Rainer, Petrograd, kindly credit the account with you of Foamings Ban ken I, Finland, Helsingfors, £27,000 to our debit. Receipt of 'this letter and execution please who urgent to Forenings Banker! 1, Finland, Helsingfors, as well as to us.—'Yours faithfully, -Moscow In-

dustrial Bank. The loiter reached the London bank in June, 1918. The Finnish bank wrote two letters instructing tho London bank to hold tho money at the disposal of the plaintiff on application; but when the plaintiff applied for tho money ho was refused payment, tho bankers saying that ho was not ono of their customers. The defendant bank pleaded that the Soviet Government had abolished all private bank's in Russia and had merged (hem in a Soviet bank. In those circumstances tho London bank claimed to bo entitled to balance all accounts of Russian banks • and to set off those which were in debit against those which were in credit. The judge decided against the plaintiff. He said that the plaintiff had lent the money to the Moscow bank, which in turn tent it to the London hank, and there could be no doubt that it did originally belong to tho plaintiff. But tho letter of the Moscow bank did not constitute an equitable assignment ; it was not a cheque; it was an ordinary commercial document in a well known form. No fund was mentioned, and there was nothing to show that it was not really a request by the Moscow bank for an overdraft. '