Russell v Croysdill
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Court | Exchequer |
| Judgment Date | 30 May 1855 |
| Date | 30 May 1855 |
English Reports Citation: 156 E.R. 770
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 24 L. J. Ex. 287, 3 W. R. 491.
[123] exchequer reports. trinity term, 18 vict. russell v. croysdill. May 30, 1855 -The 50th section of the Winding-up Act, 11 & 12 Viet, c 45, which requires actions to be brought against the official manager of the company, does not apply to a joint-stock company provisionally registered. [S. C. 24 L. J. Ex 287, 3 W. R. 491.] The declaration stated, that the plaintiff sues the defendant " as, and being, the official manager of the London and Birmingham Extension and Northampton, &c. Railway Company, &c. for money payable by the said company to the plaintiff for work done, and materials for the same provided by the plaintiff for the said company before the making of an order for the dissolution and winding up of the affairs of the said company, afterwards and before this suit made, according to the provisions of the said statute." Plea. That the said company always was a joint stock company, within the meaning of the Act of Parliament passed in the year 1844, foi the registration, incorporation, and regulation of joint stock companies, and not a banking company, school, scientific or literary institution, friendly society, loan society, or benefit building 11 EX-124. RUSSELL V. C ROYS DILL 771 society, and was a company to which the said Act applied and applies, and was a partnership consisting of more than twenf -h've members, and the formation of which was commenced after the 1st day of November, .D. 1844,and was established in England for a purpose of profit, th.it the said com pat r was [124] provisionally registered by the promoteis thereof, and such provisional re: "tratiou duly certified by the registrar of joint stock companies, as required by and in pursuance of the said Act of Parliament; but the said company was never completely registered under the said Act of Parliament, nor was the said company ever incorporated by statute, chatter, or otherwise, or authoiised by statute or letters patent or otherwise, to sue or be sued in the name of any officer or person on behalf of the same , nor was there ever airy power or authority foi the said company to sue or be sued otherwise than in and by the names of the individual members thereof that the debts claimed by the plaintiff m his declaration were contracted by the members of the said company or partnership, for the purposes thereof, after the piovisional registration thereof, as aforesaid, and befoie the said company was ordered to be dissolved and wound up...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Ernest v Weiss
...he said that in point of fact this suit is gaa% as it were, a proceeding in the winding 2 DR. & SM. 588. FATCH V. SHOEERussell v. Croysdill (11 Exch. 123); Pritchard v-. The Official Manger of the London and Birmingham Extension Company (15 C. B. 331); Ernest v. Croysdill (2 De G. F. & ......