Doubleday v Muskett and Lousada
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 November 1830 |
| Date | 12 November 1830 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 131 E.R. 43
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C. 4 Moo. & P. 750; 9 L. J. C. P. (O. S.) 35.
7 BING. 111. DOUBLEDAY V. MUSKETT 43 DOUBLEDAY V. MUSKETT AND LOUSADA. Nov. 12, 1830. [S. C. 4 Moo. & P. 750; 9 L. J. C. P. (0. S.) 35.] Defendants consented to become directors, bought shares, and attended meetings of a projected water company, for which an act of parliament was to be obtained:- Having done no act to divest themselves of their interest in the concern,-Held, that though no act of parliament was obtained, and the project failed, they were responsible for works ordered at subsequent meetings of the projectors which the defendants did not attend. Assumpsit for work and labour performed by the Plaintiff, as an excavator, under the following circumstances :- In August 1825 a company was projected for the purpose of supplying the town of Brighton with water; and the following resolutions were come to at a meeting held for that purpose on the 9th September 1825 :- " Eesolved, That a Company be formed for the better supplying with water the inhabitants of the several parishes of Brighthelnrstone, Hove, Preston, Ovingdean, and Rottingdean, in the county of Sussex, to consist of the [111] several persons now present, and such others as shall become subscribers, subject to the regulations now and hereafter to be made. That the said company be called The Brighton Water Company. That for the purpose aforesaid, Hollis Solly and E. H. Creasy, now present, be a committee of the directors of the said company, together with Major V. Russell, J. B. Lousada, and J. A. Muskett (if they accept such appointment), for the general management of the affairs of the said company. That Hollis Solly, Esq. be the chairman of the said company of directors. That Major Russell be the deputy-chairman. That Messrs. Tamplin and Co. be the treasurers or bankers of the said company. That Mr. George Chapman be the clerk and solicitor of the same. That application to parliament be made in the ensuing session for a bill to carry into effect the said undertaking; and that the solicitor do give the usual and necessary notices." In pursuance with these resolutions, the Defendants were applied to, and consented to become directors of the proposed company. They also paid instalments upon the number of shares required to qualify them for becoming directors; and the following were the minutes of two meetings held on the 17th of September:- " Present, Hollis Solly, E. H. Creasy, Major Russell, B. Gregory, J. B. Lousada, Charles Gell, G. A. Muskett, G. Chapman. "Resolved, That the minutes of the meeting held on the 9th day of September instant be confirmed. That the sum of 100,0001. be subscribed in 1000 shares of 1001. each, and that the sum of 21. 10s. per share be paid into the hands of the treasurers at the time of subscribing. That twenty shares be the qualification or number to be held by each person in the direction. Signed, H. Solly, chairman." "At an adjourned meeting held the same day, present, [112] Major Russell, Charles Gell, E. H. Creasy, George Chapman, and G. A. Muskett; Mr. Chapman reported to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bower v Griffith, and Thers
...770; S. C. 1 Br. Ch. C. 100, n. Cullen v. The Duke of Queensberry1 Br. Ch. C. 100. Eaton v. BellENR5 B. & Ald. 34. Doubleday v. MuskettENR7 Bing. 110. Bogg v. PearseENR10 C. B. 534. Addison v. The Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of PrestonENR12 C. B. 108. Doubleday v. MuskettENR7 Bing. 110. ......
-
Halifax Life Limited V. Dla Piper Scotland Llp
...In the cases which informed Erle CJ's proposition, such as Furnivall v Coombes 5 M & G 736, (1843) 134 ER 756, Doubleday v Muskett 7 Bing 110, (1830) 131 ER 43, and Watson v Murrell 1 C & P 307, (1824) 171 ER 1207, circumstances which would have been apparent to both contracting parties poi......
-
Lefroy v Gore
...LEFROY and GORE. Pitchford v. Davis 5 Mee. & W. 2. Bell v. FrancisENR 9 Car. & P. 66. Doubleday v. Muskett & LousadaENR 7 Bing. 110. Thomas v. Litchfield Collyer on Partn. 19–12. Tredwen v. Bourne 6 Mee. & W. 461. Lingard v. BromlyENR 1 Ves. & Bea. 114. Ex parte Giffard 6 Ves. 805. Sheppard......