Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

THE CASE STANFORD V. LIQUIDATORS "DAILY TIMES" COMPAN Y.

[Press Special Wire.] DxnssDVsr, April 23. In the Supreme Court to-day, Juetioei Johnston and Williams gave judgment in the case Stanford v. the liquidators of the old " Daily Times" Company. The judgment was a very long, one, and at one point contained this statement:—"But for the elaborate argument en the subject, we should not have thought it arguable that a secret agreement by an intending purchaser with one of several shareholders or 00-ownere to paj him a sum of money to do his best to carry out a sale at a certain price, was* founded on anything but an illegal consideration. If such an agreement is founded on an illegal oon■ideration then, as the money was paid in order to obtain the property in question, and not for the purchase of anything the individual shareholder could sell, it must be treated as part of the purchase money and accounted for by the person who receivos it." The judgment concluded as follow*-.— " The case v this. Two of the largest shareholders in a company, one of' them being a director, conclude together to prevent a sale of the company's assets unless a sum of money is paid by the purchaser to each of them, in addition to what he pays to the company. They make a secret bargain with the purchaser to carry out their design, and each of them receives a large sum of in pursuance of it. Can it be doubted tbat they are altogether in pari delicti, and that each must be considered as a trustee for the company in respect of the money he has received. As we are of opinion for the foregoing reasons that the defendants are entitled , to succeed, it becomes unnecessary to enquire into the oiroum»tano*s upder which the monoy was handed over by plaintiff to the liquidator*. The liquidators therefore retain possession of the extra amount of £25 per share paid to Stanford, and which he had placed in their hands pending the result of the trial."

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP18790424.2.11

Bibliographic details

Press, Volume XXXI, Issue 4285, 24 April 1879, Page 2

Word Count
344

THE CASE STANFORD V. LIQUIDATORS "DAILY TIMES" COMPANY. Press, Volume XXXI, Issue 4285, 24 April 1879, Page 2

THE CASE STANFORD V. LIQUIDATORS "DAILY TIMES" COMPANY. Press, Volume XXXI, Issue 4285, 24 April 1879, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert