Johnstone's Trustees v Roose
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 20 August 1884 |
| Docket Number | No. 1. |
| Date | 20 August 1884 |
| Court | Court of Session |
Lord Fraser, Bill-Chamber Clerk, Lord Young.
Process Foreign—Public Company—Enforcement of orders made under Companies Act, 1862 (25 and 26 Vict. c. 89)—A. S., 21st June 1883.—
Process—Foreign—Companies Act, 1862 (25 and 26 Vict. c. 89)—Public Company—Enforcement of English order by the Court in Scotland.—
The provisions of the Act of Sederunt of 21st June 1883, ‘for the enforcement of orders under the Companies Act, 1862, and the Bankruptcy Act, 1869,’* are applicable only in the case of decrees for payment of money.
The liquidator of an English company in liquidation having obtained an order in England, that he ‘should cause the books, papers, money, securities for money, goods, and chattels ‘of a contributory in Scotland ‘to be seized, and to be safely kept till the further order of the Court,’ registered the order in the Bill-Chamber in terms of the Companies Act, 1862, and the relative Act of Sederunt, 21st June 1883, and obtained a certificate of registration. He then employed a messenger-at-arms, who inventoried and took possession of the contributory's furniture in his house.
In a process of suspension and interdict the Lord Ordinary on the Bills granted interdict against the liquidator seizing, taking, retaining, or continuing in possession of the furniture, &c.
The Lord Ordinary on the Bills in vacation has not the powers conferred on the Court for enforcing decrees in Scotland by the 122d section of the Companies Act, 1862.†
On 22d July 1884 G. B. Roose, official liquidator of the Largs Bone and Seed Crushing Company, Limited, with its registered office at Bootle, near Liverpool, obtained an order from the Court of Chancery of the County Palatine of Lancaster, that he ‘should cause the books, papers, money, securities for money, goods and chattels of’ Mr and Mrs Johnstone, two contributories of the company resident in Scotland, who had not paid calls to the amount of £3000, ‘to be seized, and to be safely kept till the further order of Court.’ On 25th July this order was, on the motion of the liquidator, made an order of the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division.
On 3d August an office copy of this order was registered in the Bill-Chamber, and a certificate of registration appended to it in terms of the Act of Sederunt, 21st June 1883, ‘To regulate procedure for the enforcement of orders under the Companies Act, 1862, and the Bankruptcy Act, 1869.’ Thereupon a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beverly Penelope Pecka (Plaintiff) v Maureen Sarah Pecka and Anr (First Defendant/Appellant) Allied Dunbar Assurance Plc and Anr (First Third Party/Respondent)
...in the event that the children proceed with their alleged claim and wish to make it clear that any such action will be vigorously defended." 12 The proceedings 13 The Plaintiff's writ was issued on 3 October 1990. She claimed to be one of the persons in Box A and claimed replacement of the ......
-
Bowen Marine Ltd v The Ship “Nice Vice” et Al
...Court, which, by Order 2 apply to Admiralty proceedings. The current rules do not make provision for conditional appearance, but by 0. 12 R.1, provides for acknowledging service, and by the current practice, as indicated by the note to 0.12/1/1 at (d) (1993 of the White Book), if the defend......
-
Peter Michael Box and Another (Plaintiffs) v Urban Wesson Graham Edmund Beddows and Another (Third Parties/Respondents)
...to third party proceedings and commented that the Third Party Notice was not as clear as it might be. He drew attention in particular to Ord. 12,r.1(c) of the County Court Rules 1981. Beldam LJ said: "Such leave is conditional on him [Mr. Wesson] preparing a draft third party notice in whic......
-
Geoffrey William Radford (Plaintiff v Fiona Samuel and Another (Defendants
...go into, his order was set aside, and so it came before Forbes J on 11th October, just a week or so ago. 9 Forbes J drew attention to Ord. 12 r 1(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court, which provides: "The defendant to such an action who is a body corporate may acknowledge service of the wri......
-
Taking Financial Ombudsman Service Decisions Seriously: Foreman Financial Services
...that both the FOS and the FCA requested FFSL to make payment on a number of occasions. The FCA determined that FFSL had breached DISP3.7.12R(1) which requires an authorised firm that is the subject of an adverse FOS determination to pay out on the award. The FCA also determined that FFSL ha......
-
Former Chairman of Wm Morrison Supermarkets Plc Fined for Breach of Share Disclosure Rules
...of this failure was that the company was not in a position to provide the required information to the market in accordance with DTR 5.8.12R(1) and consequently the market was misled as to the ownership of voting rights in the company. In addition, KM's shareholding was consequently misstate......
-
Legislating Against Hate: Why Ohio's Hate Crime Statute, and the Sentencing Enhancements that Support it, Cannot Remedy Institutional Problems and Continued Bigotry
...850 (West 2015); OR. REV. STAT. § 166.155 (2015); OR. REV. STAT. § 166.155- 165 (2015); 18 PA. STAT AND CONS. STAT. ANN. § 2710 (West 2015); 12 R.1. GEN. LAWS § 12-19-38 (2002); S.D. CODJFIED LAWS § 22-19B-1 (2017); TENN. CODE ANN. § 40-35-114(17) (2016); TEx. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.......