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
Article image
Article image

LIABILITY FOR CALLS.

THE BROOKLEY COAL MINING COMPANY.

On Friday Mr H. W. Bishop, 8.M., gave judgment in the Brookley Coal Mining Company v Coreon, claim £32 7s 6d. Hie Worship said "Iα this case the plaintiff Company seeks to recover from the defendant the sum of £30 for twelve calls of Is each on fifty shares held by him in the said Company, together with the sum of £2 7s 6d for interest, making iv all £32 7s 6d. The main facts are, to a great extent, admitted, but it ia urged on behalf of the defendant that these calls cannot be recovered by the Company on the ground that they ate not made in accordance with its Articles of Association. Clauses 16 to 20, inclusive, of these Articles set out in what way the calls ehall be levied, and" clause 20 provides as follows: — ' Seven days' notice of any ball shall be given epecifying the time and place oi payment, and to whom the call shall be paid.' It is with the last portion of this clause that I have to deal. It appears that neither in the resolution by the Directors authorising the calls, nor in the subsequent notices to the shareholders, was any person mentioned to whom the calls should be paid. This appears to mc a condition precedent, and its omission invalidates the calls and; justifies the - defendant in repudiating the liability. I think this is very olear from the English cases bearing on the subject which I have been able to look through. An objection was urged to some of the calls on the ground that an interval ! of not less than one month had not j been allowed between them, so as to comply with clause 16 of the Articles. It is, of course, not necessary for mc to decide this point, as being a minor oue. but I wish to say that the objection is oertainly sound. The case of Baillie v the Edinburgh Oil Gas Light Company, 3 C.L. and F.. p. 639, conclusively settles this. Judgment is for the defendantfj^ithjoosts. ,, Mr Hunt appeared ' for the plaiuTitrCompany, Mr Kippenberger for the defendant.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP18960214.2.33

Bibliographic details

Press, Volume LIII, Issue 9340, 14 February 1896, Page 5

Word Count
361

LIABILITY FOR CALLS. Press, Volume LIII, Issue 9340, 14 February 1896, Page 5

LIABILITY FOR CALLS. Press, Volume LIII, Issue 9340, 14 February 1896, Page 5

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