Confusion, Property By - Definition - Law Dictionary Home Dictionary Definition confusion-property-by

Definition :

Confusion, property by. Where goods of two persons are so intermixed that the several portions can no longer be distinguished; if the intermixture be by consent, it is supposed that the proprietors have an interest in common, in proportion to their respective shares; but if one wilfully intermix his money, corn, or hay, with that of another man, without his approbation or knowledge, or cast gold in like manner into another's melting-pot or crucible, our law allows no remedy in such a case, but gives the entire property without any account to him whose original dominion or property is invaded, and endeavoured to be rendered uncertain without his consent, 2 Bl. Com. 405. See also Vin. Abr. Justification (B) and Instit. of Justin. 1. Ii. tit. 1, ss. 27-34.

As to the position where a person pays money held by him in a fiduciary character into his own banking account, see Re Hallett'' Estate, (1879) 13 Ch D 696; Sinclair v. Brougham, 1914 AC 398.

By the (English) Solicitors Act, 1933 (23 & 24 Geo. 5, c. 24), the Council of the Law Society has power to make rules as to the opening and keeping by solicitors of accounts at banks for clients' money. The intention is to keep such accounts separate.

The general rule, that, as against an agent who has mixed the property of his employer with his own, so as to render it undistinguishable, the whole may, both at Law and in Equity, be taken to be the property of the employer, is well settled; but the same rule does not, in all cases, hold against the creditors of such agent: for instance, if an agent pay money belonging to his employer into his own banking-house, and to his general account, this money may not be distinguishable; but should the agent become bankrupt, the whole sum which appears to be due to him from the bankers will go to his assignees, and his employer can only come in as a general creditor under the bankruptcy. So, if the bankers had an account with the agent by way of set-off, that set-off would equally affect the money of his employer paid into the agent's account as it would the agent's own money, supposing the bankers to have no notice, displacing their equity, Ex parte Topwnshend, (1809) 15 Ves 470; Massey v. Banner, (1820) 1 J&W 241 (248).