Dodgson v Bell

[967] in the exchequer chamber, (In Etioi fiom the Gouit of Exchequei ) DoDGhON ( bkll Nov 30,1850-The defendant's wife duin sola became an oiigmal shaieholdei in a banking co-pat tnetship, aftei hei marnage, but without the defendant's knowledge, she leceived dividends and paid calls in hei maiden name, and in that name was returned to the Stamp Office as a shaieholdei, but nevei executed any deed of settlement The defendant was awaie that his wife was a shareholder, but never inteiferecl in the matter, and, when applied to foi a call, said he would have nothing to do with it The deed of settlement provided, that the husband of any female shaieholdei should not be a member in respect i of such shaies, but might eithei dispose of the shales so vested in him, or at his option bet-ome a membei on complying with ceitain lequisitions -Held, th.it the defendant was not a membei of the Company foi the purpose of execution against him by scue faciab on a judgment against the public officer under the 7 Geo 4, c 4G, s 13 [S C 1 L M & P 812, 20 L J Ex 137 ] Scire facias by the plaintiff, as public officer of "The Bank of Whitehaven," on a judgment foi 13441 7s 8d recovered against the public officer of "The Newcastle-opoii-Tytie Joint Stock Bankrng Company" rlhu scue facias stated in the usual form the recovery of the judgment, and alleged that the defendant, at the time of the issuing of the writ of scue facias, was a membei of the last-mentioned Company Plea, that the defendant was not, at the time of the issuing of the writ of sciie facias, ^ member of the co-paitnership called "The Newcastle-upon-Tyne Joint Stock Uank-|ng Compaijy," niodo et forma The issue raised on this plea was tued before Patteson, J , it Newcaatle-iipon-(Tyne, on the 30th of July, 1849 The matenal facts proved and admitted by the parties to be tiue were as follows - DODGSON V BELL 5 EX 968 The defendant, on the 2^id of September, 1H4J, inclined one Maiy Stephenson, who, in 18J9, became, and at the time of hei marriage continued to be, a shaieholder in the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Joint-Stock Banking Company, in tespect of twenty original shaies of 251 each, which weie allotted to hei by the directors of the Company on her application She leceived dividends upon those abates up to the beginning of the year 1846 , and she paid calls made upon her by the Company in respect of the said shares before hei marriage, and one call aftei het marriage She [968] never executed the aftei-mentioned deed, not any doecl of acces.sion theieto, nor was she ever required to do so, but a letter of allotment was debveietl to and received by her in the following form - " Newcastle-upon-Tyne Joint-Stock Banking Company "Newcastle, 19th Apnl, 18VJ "Madam,-The directors have allotted you twenty shaies in the stock of this Company, on whu h you are requested to pay the hint instalment of Jl 10s per hhate on the 1st of Apul, the second on the 1st of Julj, and the third on the 1st of October next, either afc this ofhce, 01 at the office of the London and Westminster Bank, 38 Throgmorton street, London "The deposit of 2s Gd pei share, and the hist instalment of 21 10s to be paid at the bank on the 20th instant-I am, &c , "JOHN mouison, Manager" " Miss Mary Stevenson, Newcastle " The several instalments and the deposit in the letter mentioned weto paid by Maiy Stevenson, at the times and in the manner in the letter mentioned The receipts given by Maiy Stevenson for the last three dividends received by hei on her said shares were in the form following - "No 76 "Divrdend warrant Half-year ending 30th of June, 1844 M Bell (late Miss Stephenson) Stock paid up, 2501 Dividend at 61 per cent, 71 10s Newcastle-upon-Tyrie, 8th of April, 1846 Newcastle-upon-Tyne Joint-Stock Banking Company Pay self or bearer the sum of 71 10s "71 10s, (Signed) mary siel-henron " (a) [969] The calls were paid by Mary Stephenson in her own name, and the name of the defendant never appeared in the books of the bank, noi in the shareholders' register of the Banking Company, and Mary Stephenson was always returned to the Stamp Ottice hi London, in the yearly list of shaieholdeis, as a shareholdei in her maiden name The defendant was not aware of his wrfe Mary Stephenson paying any of the calla, or receivrng any of the dividends as aforesaid , but he knew that she was a shareholder in the bank when he married her The Company's deed of settlement was put in evidence, bearing date the 2nd of July, 18J6, the material parts of which are as follows - By the interpretation clause it was provided, that the ex:piessions "shaieholders " and "members " shall respectively mean the owners for the time being of shares in the capital of the said Company Clause 12 "That the persons in whose names the shares should stand should be deemed the owners thereof " Clause 13 "That the shaies 111 the capital of the Company shall, as between the shareholders thereof and then respective repiesentatives, be considered as personal estate, and that there...