Foley v Hill (1848) 2 HLC 28, 9 ER 1002 is a judicial decision of the House of Lords in relation to the fundamental nature of a bank account.

The bank sent a letter enclosing the receipt and agreeing to pay 3 per cent interest on the sum.

The House of Lords held that because there was no equitable relationship the defence based upon limitation periods succeeded.

The money placed in custody of a banker is, to all intents and purposes, the money of the banker, to do with it as he pleases; he is guilty of no breach of trust in employing it; he is not answerable to the principal if he puts it into jeopardy, if he engages in a hazardous speculation; he is not bound to keep it or deal with it as the property of his principal; but he is, of course, answerable for the amount, because he has contracted, having received that money, to repay to the principal, when demanded, a sum equivalent to that paid into his hands.

[6][7] Although various earlier cases had also applied the principle that the relationship between banker and customer was one of debtor and creditor,[8] this was the first time that the House of Lords, as the highest court in the land, had affirmed the position.