Chapman and Another v Milvain
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 February 1850 |
| Date | 25 February 1850 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 155 E.R. 27
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S C 1 L M & P 209, 19 L J Ex 228, 14 Jur 251 Applied, Coe v Wise, 1866, L R 1 Q B 721, 7 B & S 831
[61] cuapman and another v MiLVAiN Feb 2."), I cSr ()-A Company of persons, established fot the purpose of carrying on the business of bankets under the provisions of the 7 Geo 4, c 46, in an action agunst a shareholder for the recovery of a debt, 01 for enforcing any claim 01 demand due to the copartnership, ate bound to sue in the name of one of their public officers, and aie not at liberty to sue in the names of the covenatitees named in the deed of eopartnei-,ship The words of the 9th section of the Act, "shall and may," ate obligatory, and not merely permissive [SO I L M & P J09, 19 L J Ex J28 , 14 Jui 251 Applied, Coe v wl^, I860, L li I Q B 721 , 7 13 & S 8.il J This was a special demurrer to a plea, and was aigued in Hilaiy Term last, (January 18,) immediately after the preceding case of Milutm v Matfiei Granger, foi the plaintiffs, cited Puntlawl v (liliwi (I Alcock & Napier, 310), R u, v, Jamttf, (7 C & P 55J), Hey v Beaul (8 C & P 14.S), and Skmtien v Latnbeit (4 Man & G 477) Hugh Hill, contra, cited timilh v Goldswoithy (4 (^ B 4.50), Will* v tiutlmiland (4 Exch 211), and Klhiuiid v Omites (10 M & W 711) The pleadings and the arguments ate so fully set foith in the judgment of the Court, that it is not necessary to repeat them Cur adv vult The judgment of the Court was now delivered by pakke, B This is an action by the two plamtitta, Messrs Chapman, on a co\enant with then, by name, contained in the deed of copartnership of the Newcastle, Shields, and Sunderlnnrl Union Joint-stock Banking Company, made on the 1st of October, 1830 The different subscribers covenant, each one for himself, to pay calls duly made, and the defendant, being a subscriber, is sued on his covenant, for nonpayment The defendant craves oyei of the deed, which is set out, and then pleads, that, the Banking Company was and still is a company of persons united in copaitneiship foi [62] the purpose of carryrng on the trade and business ot bankers rn England, according to the statute 7 Geo 4, c 46 , that there were and ate public officers of the copartrrership according to that statute, arid that the sums of money sought to be recovered in the action were debts, claims, and demands due to the copartnership, and relating to the concerns of the same To this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Flaherty and Others (Creditors of the Tipperary Bank) v McDowell (Official Manager of the said Bank), Attorney General and Others
...which render useless those of the 33 Geo. 2. The cases of Steward, v. Greaves (10 Mees. and Wels. 711) and Chapman v. Milvam (5 Exch. Rep. 61) show that where a particular mode of enforcing a liability, different from that which previously existed at the common law, has been created by stat......
-
Fitzgerald v Rowan
...Nap. 310. Nickoll v. GlennieENR 1 M. & S. 589. Ex parte NorrishENR Jacob, 162. Steward v. GreavesENR 10 M. & W. 711. Chapman v. MilvainENR 5 Exch. 61. Shipman v. HenbestENR 4 T. R. 109. Emery v. DayUNK 4 Tyrw. 695. Kill v. Hollister 1 Wils. 129. Fleming v. Self 24 L. J, N. S., Chan. 29. Lun......
-
Bell, one of the public Officers of the National Provincial Bank of England v Fisk
...a covenant with certain persons as trustees for the company, to pay calls. The latest case upon the subject is that of Chapman v. Milvain, 5 Exch. 61, where it was held that a company of persons established for the purpose of carrying on the business of bankers under the provisions of 7 G. ......
-
LAWDER v LAWDER. [Common Pleas.]
...Pleas. LAWDER and LAWDER. Colthurst v. Haynes 2 F. & S. 357. Chapman v MilvainENR 5 Exch. 61. The Parish of St. Pancras 6 A. & E. 1. Logan v. Earl CourtownENR 13 Beav. 22. Powell v. Milbanke 3 Wils. 355. Craig v. NorfolkENRENR 1 Mod. 122; S. C., 2 Lev. 108. Webb's case 4 Coke's Rep., Part 8......