Moore v Garwood
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 December 1849 |
| Date | 01 December 1849 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 154 E.R. 1388
IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S C 19 L J Ex 15 Applied, Hudspeth v Yarnold, 1850, 9 C B 621, Ward v Lord Londesborough, 1852, 12 C B 252
1388 MOORE V GARWOOD 4 EX 681 [681] in the exchequer chamber (In Error from the Court of Exchequer ) moore v GARWOOD Dec 1, 1849 -In an action for money had and teceived, by an allottee of railway scrip, foi the recovery of his deposit on the abandonment of the scheme, the letter of allotment was offered in evidence by the plaintiff, who called upon the defendant to produce the letter of application, which he refused to do -Held, in enoi on a bill of exceptions, that, under suoh ciicumstances, the letter of allotment was receivable in evidence without a stamp, as there was no presumption that the two letters were ad idem, and that the contract depended upon them alone -The deposit was paid into one of the Banks mentioned in the prospectus of the Company, on accouit of the Company and to their credit, the defendant being a member of the managing and also of the pi ovisrorial committee , and upon application by the plaintiff for a return of hi1-, deposit, he received from the dttoiney of the Company an answer, to the effect that arrangements for that purpose were being made -Held, that there was evidence that the money was had and received, by the defendant Held also, that, as the evidence in the case did not depend altogether upon written instruments, but upon other matteis of fact, it was a question for the jury, and not for the judge, what was the contract between the paities [S C 19 L J Ex 15 Applied, Huchpelh \ Yanidd, 1850, 9 C 13 (.21, Wurdv Lord Londtsboi ough, 1852, 12 C B 252 \ Error on d bill of exceptions This was an action of assumpsit biought by the plaintiff helow (the defendant in erior) for money had and received, and ou an account stated to which the defendant below (the plaintiff in en or) pleaded non assumpsit, and upon that plea issue was joined At the trial of the cause, before Pollock, C B , at the Middlesex Sittings aftei Trinity Term, L84f , it appeared that the action was brought by the plaintiff (a) to recover back the amount of a deposit, that the defen-dcUjt was a member both of the provisional and of the man.iging committees, and had taken an active part in the transactions, of a certain projected .Railway Company , and that the committee of that Company had, in the month of September, 1845, published a prospectus, headed "The Great Manchestei, Rugby, and Southampton Railway Company, with a direct Line from Derby to Kugby Provisionally registered purmuant to 7 & 8 Viet c 110 Capital 3,000,0001, in"l.'jO.OOO Shaies of 201 each Deposit 21 2s. per Share" This prospectus, after settrng forth the names [682] of the provisional and managing committee, in both of which that of the defendant appeared, and after enlarging upon the advantages of the line, contained the following clause "The subscnbeis will only be liable to the extent of then deposits, and power will be taken to allow the shareholders 41 pel cent ou the deposits and calls on the opening of the line " The plaintiff had applied by letter to the committee of manage-metit for j certain number of shaies in the scheme , but the defendant, when called upon by the plaintiff's counsel to produce this letter, refused to do so, though due notjice to produce had been given The plaintrft's counsel thereupon tendered in evidence the following unstamped letter of allotment, which had been sent to the plaintiff by the secretary, and \\ hich was signed by and issued undei the authority of that committee - "The Great Manchester, Lvugby, and Southampton Railway Company, with a Direct Line from Derby to Rugby Registered provisionally Capital, i,000,000 , in ir)0,000 Shdi eB of 201 each No of Letter, 5.3 No of Shares, 50 Deposit, 10,11 Offices of the Company, 1 Royal Exchange Buildings "Nov 1, 1815 "Sn,-I am directed to iiifoirn you that the committee of management ha\e, in compliance with your applrcation, allotted to you 50 Shares in this Company, and that yoi) are requrrecl to pay the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Realestate.com.au Pty Ltd v Hardingham; RP Data Pty Ltd v Hardingham
...v The City Bank of Sydney (1904) 2 CLR 198 at 209; Handbury v Nolan (1977) 13 ALR 339 at 341-342, 346, 348-349. See also Moore v Garwood (1849) 4 Ex 681 at 684-685, 689-690 [ 154 ER 1388 at 1389, 1391-1392]; Bolckow v Seymour (1864) 17 CB (NS) 107 at 120-121 [ 144 ER 43 at 49]; Palmer v Ban......
- Davison v Vickery's Motors Ltd ((in Liquidation))
-
Montgomery v Johnson Underwood Ltd
...exchanges and conduct. In the latter case, the terms of the contract are a question of fact." 13 From his citation of Moore v Garwood (1849) 4 Ex 681, it is clear that in such a case he was endorsing the view that: "The real intention and meaning of the parties ……" is a question of 14 In Cl......
- Macrobertson Miller Airline Services v Commissioner of State Taxation (Western Australia)