Royal British Bank v Turquand
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 May 1856 |
| Date | 01 May 1856 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 119 E.R. 886
IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
S. C. 25 L. J. Q. B. 317; 2 Jur. N. S. 663. Applied, Totterdell v. Fareham Brick Company, 1866, L. R. 1 C. P. 677; Fountaine v. Carmarthen and Cardigan Railway, 1868, L. R. 5 Eq. 321. Approved, In re Land Credit Company of Ireland, 1869, L. R. 4 Ch. 469. Referred to, In re London Hamburg and Continental Bank, 1870, L. R. 5 Ch. 451. Adhered to, In re Bank of Hindustan, 1873, L. R. 9 Ch. 20. Referred to, Colonial Bank of Australasia v. Willan, 1874, L. R. 5 P. C. 448; Riche v. Ashbury Carriage Company, 1874-75, L. R. 9 Ex. 227; L. R. 7 H. L. 653. Applied, Mahony v. East Holyford Mining Company, 1875, L. R. 7 H. L. 883. Distinguished, Irvine v. Union Bank of Australia, 1877, 2 App. Cas. 366. Referred to, Ward v. Royal Exchange Shipping Company, 1887, 58 L. T. 177. Followed, County of Gloucester Bank v. Rudry Merthyr Steam and House Coal Company, [1895] 1 Ch. 629; In re Hampshire Land Company, [1896] 2 Ch. 747; Duck v. Tower Galvanizing Company, [1901] 2 K. B. 318; Premier Industrial Bank Limited v. Carlton Manufacturing Company Limited, [1909] 1 K. B. 114.
[327] in the exchequer chamber. (error from the court of j ,-- . - queen's bench.) - _ the eoval british bank against turquand. Tuesday, May 1st, 1856. Plaintiff WSJ. lj(. B.56. declared against defendants, a joint stock Company completely registered under pa-QH.B.ISO. gtat. 7 & 8 Viet. c. 110, on a bond, signed by two directors, under the seal of the ^^-Company, whereby the Company acknowledged themselves to be bound to plaintiff in 20001. - The plea set out the condition, which appeared to be for securing to jf^the plaintiff, who was a banker, such sum as the Company should, to the amount of 10001., owe to plaintiff on the balance of the account current, from time to time, and for indemnifying plaintiff' to that amount from losses incurred by reason of the account between plaintiff and defendants. The plea further set out clauses of the registered deed of settlement, by which it appeared that the directors were authorized, under certain circumstances, to give bills, notes, bonds or mortgages : and one clause provided that the directors might borrow on bond such aums as should, from time to time, by a general resolution of the Company, be authorized to be borrowed. The plea averred that there had been no such resolution authorizing the making of the bond, and that it was given without the authority of the shareholders. - The replication set out the deed of settlement further, by which it appeared that the Company was formed for the purpose of carrying on mining operations and forming a railway. - On demurrers to the plea and replication, held, by the Court of Exchequer Chamber, affirming the judgment of Q. B., that plaintiff waa entitled to judgment, the obligee having, on the facts alleged, a right to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Die Turquand-reël : hoofstuk 7
...Developments Pty Ltd v Registrar-General & Ors (1990) 8 ACLC 161.178 Dit is die reël soos beliggaam in Royal British Bank v Turquand (1856) 6 E&B 327.179 Bennet 1996:65. Sien ook hoofstuk 5 vir ’n volledige bespreking van die leerstuk van toegerekende kennis.180 (1) A person is entitled to ......
-
Abuse of the trust figure in South Africa : an analaysis of a number of recent developments
...the breach of trust committed bythe Parkers prior to the appointment of the requisite third trustee “may 35 (1856) 119 ER 886 (Ex Ch) (6 E & B 327; [1843 - 1860] All ER Rep 435).36 Per Farlam JA quoting Halsbury’s Laws of Englandin Nieuwoudt v VrystaatMielies (Edms) Bpk2004 3 SA 486 SCA at ......