« PreviousContinue »
(xxxiv.) B, DiV.—Acceptam.ce of Shares —Po.s-ting of Letter.4As soon as a letter of allotment in reply to an application for shares is posted, properly addressed to the applicant, the contract to take shares is complete.—Househ0ld Fire Insurance Co. v. Grant, 48 L.J., Q.B. 219.
(xxxv.) Ch_ Div, V_ C, M,—Action by Shareholder in Name of.—An action having been begun by a shareholder in his own name and that of a company : the company afterwards went into voluntary liquidation, and the shareholders resolved by a large majority that the action should not be continued in the company's name. The Court ordered the company to be struck out as plaintiffs, and gave leave to add them as defendants. -—-Silber Light Go. v. Silbe-r, 40 L.T. 96; 27 W.R. 427.
(xxxvi.) Ch. Div. M. R_——Debentwres-Unregistered Mortgage-Companies Act, 1862, s. 43.—Debentures of a company held by a director are not void as against general creditors on the ground that the deed mort. gaging the company’s property to trustees for the debenture-holders had not been registered. —Re Globe New Patent Steel Co., 27 W.R. 424.
(xxxvii.) C. A.—1lfeeting—Votz>ng-—Poll.—At meetings held under the Companies Act, 1862, the vote is first to be taken by a show of hands, and if a poll is demanded the votes will then be taken according to the number of shares held by each voter.—Re H0rl7u.r1y Bridge Coal Co., 27 W.R. 488.
(xxlviii-) Ch. Div. V. C. M.——Morfgage—Bo1~rowing for puvposes of Business. ——A company having mortgaged all its undertaking to A., borrowed money from B., who knew of the mortgage, for the necessary purposes of its business, and assigned to him a debt due from C. On the winding.up : Held that the assignment to B. was good.—Re Hamilton's Windsor Iron Works, 39 L.T. 658; 27 W.R. 44-5.
(xxxix.) Q. B. DiV.— Penalty—- Non.-Deliver-y of List of Members.-—0n a summons against a company for not having forwarded to the Registrar a list of its members: Held that it was necessary for complainant to prove that the first ordinary general meeting had been held.—Regin,a. v. Newton, 48 L.J. M.C. 77.
(xl.) Q. B. DiV.—P'romote'r—Secret Agreem.ent.—Th8 owner of a mine agreed with defendants, who were metal brokers, that if they would assist him to get the mine sold to a company, he would compensate them for the loss they would sustain on their commission, by giving them £5,000 in paid.up shares, such £6,000 to be included by the owner in the amount of his purchase-money. Defendants assisted in selling the mine to plaintiff company, and received from the owner shares which realized £6,000. The company did not know of defendants’ agreement with the owner : Held that the jury were justified in finding that defendants were promoters, and that they were liable to refund to the company the amount received for the shares.—Emmu. Silver Mining Co. v. Lewis, 48 L.J. Q.B. 257; 40 L.T. 168.
(xli.) Ch. Div. M. R.——U'm'egister:d Compa.ny—Illegal As.-mciation.—Where more than twenty persons subscribed money upon trusts for investment by trustees, and division of the profits among the subscribers : Held that this was an association for gain within sec. 4 of the Companies Act, 1862, and not being registered was illegal, and the Court would therefore not administer the trusts thereof.—Syl.'es v. Beadon, 40 L.T. 248; 27 W.R. 464.
(xlii.) C. A.—Winding-up—Attachment of Debt—Secured Creditor.—A creditor of a company who has obtained a garnishee order 'n.isi against a debtor to the company, but does not serve the order on the debtor till after a winding.up petition is presented, is not a secured creditor within secs.
12 and 14 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1869, which provisions now apply to the winding-up of companies by virtue of sec. 10 of Judicature Act, 1875.—Re Stanhope Collieries Co., 40 L.T. 204-.
tion. — The subscribers to the memorandum of association passed a resolution that the qualification of future directors should be the holding of 50 shares each, no qualification being required by the memorandum. R. subsequently became a director not knowing of the resolution, and as soon as he did know tried to get the resolutions rescinded and ultimately resigned : Held that R. could not be put on the list of contributories in respect of the fifty qualification shares.-—Re Patent Davit Co., Rankevfs Case, 39 L.T. 664.
firm, one of whose members was director of a company advanced money to the company on the security of a transfer of delivery warrants of iron, which were transferred to the director for the benefit of the firm, but the transaction was not entered on the register of mortgages : Held, on the winding-up, that the security was not forfeited.—Re South Dwrhann I1-on Co., Smith's Case, 40 L.T. 63.
Ch, Div, M, R,— Winding-up—Di1'ector—Pr0motion ilIoney.—Held on the winding-up of‘ a company that where promotion money had been improperly paid, of which B. was cognisaut, and he subequently became a director, but did not try to recover the money, that he was not liable for wilful default or misfeasance under sec. 165 of Companies Act, 1862.
—Re Forest of Dean Coal Mining Co., L.R. 10 Ch. D. 450.
Evidence on Appea.l.——If adirector of a company who is authorized to carry out an agreement by the company with a vendor, has received some of the shares given to the vendor as purchase.money at less than their value, the onus lies on him to show that he received,such shares after the adoption of the agreement, and if he fail to show this, he will be liable to pay the diflerence between the amount paid to the vendor for the shares and their full nominal value. Fresh evidence as to the date of the purchase by the director not admitted on appeal.West2m’s Case, Re West Jewell Mining Co., 40 L.T. 43; 27 W.R. 310.
creditor appearing on a winding-up petition may be entitled to his costs, he must show a reasonable ground for appearing.—Re Hull and County Bank, L.R.. 10 Ch. D. 130; 27 W.R.. 377.
given to a creditor who successfully opposed a petition by a shareholder to wind-up a company.--Re Caz-ml/rvonshire Slate Co., 40 L.T. 35.
holder who, at the hearing of a petition, tenders the amount of arrears due on his share, has a locus standi, and a fully paid-up shareholder in a limited company can present a petition to wind-up when he alleges that the company is insolvent in consequence of the fraud of directors, and that a sum will be recovered from the directors in the winding-up suflioient to give a. surplus after payment of debts.—Re Diamond Fuel Co., 39 L.T. 662; 27 W.R. 336.
Ch. Div. M. R.—Winding-up—Two Pefitim1s—P1'ior1'ty.—-Where a winding-up order is made on two petitions, the advertisements of which appear in the same number of the London Gazette, the petitioner whose petition was first presented is entitled to the carriage of the order.
Re Storjorth Lane Colliery C0 , L.R.-10 Ch. D. 487.
C, A.-—Winding-up—Proqf—Redeemable Ammity.—A company granted an annuity with a right to repurchase the same for £6,500 on giving six months’ notice : at the date of the winding-up no notice to repurchase had been given, nor was any given by the liquidator: Held that the grantee could only prove for £6,500.—Ew parts Young and Garratt, Re British Nation Life Assurance Association, 40 L.T. 88; 27 W.R. 4-4-3.
C. A.——Winding-up Voluntarily—Patfl/ion for Compulsory Order.—Where a voluntary winding.up had been duly resolved upon, and a petition for a compulsory winding-up was presented by a contributory: Held that, although great improprieties had taken place in the method of issuing shares, yet the Court could not order a compulsory winding-up or make
a supervision order.—Re The Gold Company, 40 L.T. 5; 27 W.R. 34-1.
Ch. Div. V. C. B.—Ph0togrctph—Engrav1'ng—5 ¢§*' 6 Vict., c. 100, ss. 4, 5.—An engraving made from a publicly sold photograph of an eminent person for the purpose of being copied on earthenware plates, is not a new and original design capable of protection under the Copyright of Designs Act.—ArIams v. Clenwntson, 27 W.R. 379.
County Court :
P. D. A. DiV.—Appeal—Evidence.-—In an Admiralty appeal from a County Court, where there were no shorthand notes of evidence, or notes by the County Court Judge available, it was ordered that the appeal should be heard on virri, race evidence.——Tlu Confidence, The Susan Elizabeth, 40 L.T. 201.
C. P. DiV.—Appeal—E:vtensi0'n of Time—-38 &' 39 Vict., c. 50, s. 6.— No leave of the County Court or a judge will avail to extend the time for moving by way of appeal against a decision of a County Court beyond the time limited by Sec. 6 of the County Courts Act.—Tennant v. Raw. lings, L.R. 4 C.P.D. 133.
Q. B. DiV.—Injunction—Com-mittal for Disobsdience—-Jiulicature Act, 1873, s, 89.—A County Court has power, in actions within its jurisdiction, to grant an injunction against a nuisance, and to commit to prison for disobedience thereof.—-Ea: pa/rte Ma-rtin, L.R.. 4- Q.B.D. 212; 27 W.R. 4.-31.
38 if 39 Vict., c. 63.—The offence, created by sec. 6 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, is committed by a sale to an inspector appointed under the Act. and buying for the purpose of analysis, if an ordinary customer, would have been prejudiced by such eale.—H0yle v. Hitchman,
beyond year—32 if" 33 Vict., c. 62, s. 4.—Where the warrant under which a person is committed to prison for contempt does not refer to the nature of the contempt, the guoler is not bound to inquire whether the imprison
ment is such as is limited by the provisions of the Debtors Act, 1869.Greaves v. Keene, 40 L.T. 216; 27 W.R. 4-16.
C. P. D1'.V.—-Imprisrmment for One Calemlur Month»-Plaintifi was sentenced by a magistrate to be imprisoned for one calendar month, and was taken into custody during the afternoon of the 81st of October: Held that the sentence did not expire till midnight on the 30th of Novembcr.—Migotti v. Col/ville, 48 L.J. M.C. 48.
edges so as toreduce the weight, and a new milling made to it: Held that it was a counterfeit coin within Sec. 9 of 24 dz 25 Vict., c. 99.Regina v. Hermann, 40 L.T. 263 ; 27 W.R. 4-75.
Debtor and Creditor :—
(xii.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.—Atta.chment of Debt—Foa-eign AttachmentBankrwptcy Act, 1869, s. l2.—The creditor of a plaintifl in an action in the Chancery Division issued an attachment against him in the Lord Mayor's Court, and served the writ of attachment upon the defendant in the Chancery action, from whom plaintifi claimed a sum of money. Defendant paid the money into Court, and on an interpleader issue between the creditor and the plaintifi's trustee in liquidation: Held that the former was a creditor holding a security within Sec. 12 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1869.—Levy v. Lovell, 27 W.R. 428.
(xiii.) C. P. Div.--Attachment of Debt—Sum Paid into County C'o'u.rt.—The proceeds of a judgment paid into a County Court are not attachable by means of a garnishee summons at the suit of a third person, as a debt
due from the registrar of the Court to the judgment debtor.—D0lphin v. Legion, L.R. 4 C.P.D. 130.
(xiv.) Ch, Div, M, R,—Equitable Assignment-—Not1'ce —P'n'm-ity.-—A. assigned his equitable interest in a fund: no notice of the assignment was given to the trustees of the fund: A. died, and his executrix sold his interest to a purchaser for value without notice of the prior assign. ment, who gave notice of hi purchase to the trustees: Held, that the
(xv.) C, A,—S£nppa,ge in 'I‘ra/n.situ ——— Constructive Delii'e'ry.—Goods were shipped on board a vessel chartered by the owners and consigned to M. : the bill of lading being made out in his name, he paying freight. When a part of the goods had been removed from the vessel, and the freight had not all been paid, the shippers gave notice to the master to stop unloading: Held. that they had not lost their right of stoppage in transit“ as to so much of the cargo as remained on the vessel.—Ea: pa/rte Cooper,
. Re McLa/ren, 40 L.J. 105.
(vi.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.-—Light and Ai-r—Ag1-eement Signed by Licensee— 2 §" 3 Will 4, c. 71, s. 3.———Defendant in an action for light and air set up a document dated in 1824, and signed only by K., plaintiff's predecessor in title, whereby K. declared that the windows, the subject of the present action, were put out by the leave of S. (defendant's predecessor in title), and that he would at any time at the request of S., his heirs, or assigns, block them up, and in the meantime he promised to pay S., his heirs, and assigns, the sum of sixpence a year : the rent had been paid up to 1859: Held that the agreement contained in the document was a good defence.——Bewley v. Atkinson, 27 W.R. 452.
(vii.) C, A_-S-uppm-t—Presu.mption of Grant—Prescription.—The right to support for buildings from adjoining land cannot be claimed under the Prescription Acts, but may be acquired by prescription at Common Law, or by presumption of a lost grant arising from twenty years' enjoyment, and such presumption cannot be rebutted by proof that no such grant was in fact ever made.—-Angus §" O0. v. Dalton, L.R. 4- Q.B.D. 162; 48 L.J. Q.B. 225.
Q, B, Div_—Ecclesia,st1'cal Ofl‘ence—C'ommis.n'0'n—Ma/ndannus—8 4? 4 Vict., c. 86, s. 3.—A bishop having refused to issue a commission to inquire into a charge made against the rector of a parish in his diocese, under 3 & 4. Vict., e. 86, s. 3. on the grounds of the reotor's age and high character, the opposition of the majority of his parishioners to the inquiry, and the usually abortive nature of such proceedings: Held that the bishop was not justified in his refusal, and mandamus issued to compel him to proceed.—Regina v. Bishop of Ozfo-rd, 40 L.T. 152.
Q. B. DiV.—Vestry Meeting—S'u.mmom'ng Auth.nrity.—'I‘he vicar and ohurchwardens of aparish declined to enter on the notice paper of a vestry meeting a notice of motion by a parishioner that future meetings should be held at a particular hour: Held that the vicar and churchwardens had power to fix the time of each meeting, and therefore were
justified in refusing to enter the notice.- Regina v. Vicar of Tottenham, 4-0 L.T. 255.
Q. B. DiV.—Guardinns of POOT—F(ll-581]] Assuming to .4ct—14.- Q‘ 15 Vict., 0. 105, s. 3.——Appellant called at a voter’s house during his absence, placed the voter's initials against two of the candidates’ names in his voting paper for the election of guardians of the poor, and signed his own name as witness to the voter’s mark which he got another person to make. He had no authority to do this. It did not appear by whom the voting paper was given to the returning officer: Held that appellant could not be convicted for falsely assuming to act in the name or on behalf of a person entitled to vote.—Bell v. Morson, 40 L.T. 128.
C. P. DiV.—-Pdrliament—Coimty Vote—Not'ice of Objerfion—-Description--6 &' 7 Vict., c. 18, s. 40,- 28 §' 29 Vict., c. 86, s. 6.—The nature of a county voter's interest was described in the third column of the register as freehold land : and in the fourth column his qualification was described as fifteen specified lots in the estate: the voter had parted with fourteen of the lots, but the remaining one was of snfiieient qualifying value: notice of objection grounded on the third column was given: Held that the revising barrister ought not to have entertained an objection grounded on the misdescription of the qualification, and that he had power to amend the description in the fourth cnlumn.——
C. P. DiV.— Parlia,numt—O'nunt'y Vote-Proof of Claim.—Where the name of a person published in the list of claimants for a county is objected to, the revising barrister has only to consider whether the claimant is entitled to be on the list in respect of his qualification therein described, and is not to require proof of due notice of claim.—
Evidence =(vi.) C. P. DiV.—Decla1-ations by Deceased Credito-r.—In an action to recover
a debt due to the estate of a deceased person, a parol statement by him azainst his pecuniary interest is admissible.—Wa.ts0n v. Sandford, 4-0 L.T. 39.