Short v Mercier
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1848 |
| Date | 01 January 1848 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 64 E.R. 285
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Affirmed, 3 Mac. & G. 205; 42 E. R. 239 (with note).
[635] short v. mekcier. Nov. 14, 1848 ; June 23, 1849. [Affirmed, 3 Mac. & G. 205; 42 E. E. 239 (with note).] A bill praying for an account of all dealings and transactions between the Plaintiff and Defendants stated that the Plaintiff had transferred shares into the names of the Defendants, to secure any possible balance which might become due to the Defendants upon the result of transactions at that time contemplated, but that no balance was due, and that the transactions were terminated, and yet the Defendants declined to retransfer the shares. And the bill sought a discovery as to the particulars of the transactions in question. To the whole of the discovery sought the Defendants pleaded the Stock-jobbing Act (7 Geo. 2, c. 8), and that the Plaintiff alleged that all the transactions mentioned in the bill related to the purchase of stock, of which the vendors were not possessed at the times of the contracts for sale. But it was consistent with .the plea to suppose that there might have been dealings between the parties not affected by illegality. The plea was ordered to-stand for an answer, with liberty to except. The Defendants then put in an answer stating that, on taking the accounts, a balance of 682 would be found due to them ; but they declined answering as to the particulars of the transactions in question, stating that by reason of the Stockjobbing Act, and their having been brokers of the Plaintiff, they were advised and believed that the discovery of any of the matters which they declined to answer would tend to subject them to the forfeiture and penalties imposed by that statute. Held, that the statement was sufficient to protect the Defendants from discovery, and that it would be too strict to infer, from the allegation of a balance being due-to the Defendants, that some of the transactions must be taken to have been legal. This was a bill for an account of the dealings and transactions between the Plaintiff and Defendants, and for the transfer of certain railway shares, to which the Plaintiff claimed to be entitled. The bill stated that, in the month of March 1848, the Plaintiff was the owner of 86 quarter shares in the Great Western Eailway Company, and was also the owner of 300 shares in the Shrewsbury and Birmingham Eailway Company, all which shares were standing in his name in the books of those companies. The bill also stated that at that time there were in contemplation dealings- 286 SHOET V. MEECIER 2 DE G. & SM. 636. and transactions between the Plaintiff and the Defendants' (the latter being then co-partners in business as sharebrokers); that it was probable that monies might become due from the Plaintiff to the Defendants in respect of these transactions; and that it was agreed between the Plaintiff and the Defendants that the Plaintiff should transfer the railway shares to the Defendants as a security for any balance which might thus become due from the Plaintiff to the Defendants ; that, accordingly, the Plaintiff, on the 2d of March 1848, duly executed a transfer deed, whereby, for a nominal consideration, he assured all his quarter shares in the Great Western Railway Company unto one George Edward Seymour, and at the same time [636] delivered to the Defendants the certificates of the Plaintiff's being the owner of the Shrewsbury and Birmingham Railway shares.- The bill stated that some dealings and transactions had taken place between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, but that all dealings and transactions between them had been concluded, and that no sum of money whatever was now due from the Plaintiff to the Defendants upon the balance of the account between them ; and that the Defendants now held the shares and certificates merely as trustees for the Plaintiff, and had no lien or charge thereon for any sum of money whatever. That the Plaintiff had applied to the Defendants, and requested them to retransfer the shares to him, but that the Defendants refused, pretending that they had paid and disbursed for the Plaintiff more than they had received on his account, and that a large sum of money was due to them from the Plaintiff, and that they were entitled to hold the railway shares and certificates as security for the same. Whereas the Plaintiff charged the contrary of such pretence to be the truth, and that so it would appear, if the Defendants would set forth, as they ought to do, a full and true account of the particulars and amount of the alleged debt, and how each and every part of the same arose and was constituted, and in respect of what contract or contracts, and a full and true account of all and every the dealings and transactions between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, in respect of which the said alleged debt became due ; and if the Defendants should allege that they had effected any sale or sales, or purchases or purchase, as the agents of the Plaintiff, or otherwise acted as the agents of the Plaintiff, then the bill charged that the Defendants ought to set forth the particulars of every transaction in which they or either of them acted as such agents or agent of the Plaintiff. The prayer was for an account of all dealings and transactions between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, and that the amount due upon the balance of such account [637] might be ascertained; and that the Defendants might be decreed to pay to the Plaintiff what might be found due from them on taking such account; and that the Defendants might be decreed to transfer to the Plaintiff the Great Western Railway shares, and to deliver to him the Shrewsbury and Birmingham certificates, upon the Plaintiff paying them, as he thereby offered to do, what (if anything) might be found to be due from him, upon taking the said accounts ; and that, in the meantime, the Defendants might be restrained from transferring the railway shares, and from parting with the railway certificates, to any other person than the Plaintiff. To this bill the Defendants put in a plea in bar of the discovery sought by it, thereby pleading the statute 7 Geo. 2, c. 8,(1) and averring that certain dealings and (1) The 7 Geo. 2, c. 8, intituled "An Act to Prevent the Infamous Practice of Stock-Jobbing," provides (sect. 8), "That all contracts and agreements whatsoever, which shall from and after the said 1st day of June 1734, be made or entered into for the buying, selling, assigning or transferring of any public or joint stock or stocks, or other public securities whatsoever, or of any part, share or interest therein, whereof the person or persons contracting or agreeing, or on whose behalf the contract or agreement shall be made, to sell, assign and transfer the same, shall not, at the time of making such contract or agreement, be actually possessed of or entitled unto in his, her or their own right, or in his, her or their own name or names, or in the name or names of a trustee or trustees to their use, shall be null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever; and that all and every person and persons whatsoever contracting or agreeing, or on whose behalf and with whose consent any contract or .agreement shall be made, to sell, assign or transfer any public or joint stock or stocks 2DEG.&SM.638. SHOBT V...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robinson v Kitchin
...citizens for every such offence the sum of 100. Mr. Follett and Mr. Martindale, for the Appellants. They referred to Short v. Mercier (2 De G. & Sm. 635 ; 3 Mac. & Gor. 205); Hobinson v. Lanwrul (15 Jur. 240), Fisher v. Ronalds (12 C. B. 762); Parkhurst v. Lowten (2 Swanst. 194); Maccalium ......
-
Short v Mercier
...English Reports Citation: 42 E.R. 239 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY Short and Mercier S. C. 2 De G. & Sm. 635; 18 L. J. Ch. 490; 20 L. J. Ch. 289; 15 Jur. 93. See Bartlett v. Lewis, 1863, 9 Jur. (N. S.), 204. [205] short v. mercier. Jan. 13, 14, 15, 1851. [S. C. 2 De G. & Sm. 635 ; 18 L. J. Ch. 49......
-
Bunn v Bunn
...a link in the chain with which our opponent seeks to bind us. [317] They referred to With v. Parker (22 Beav. 59) ; Short v. Herder (2 De G. & Sm. 635 ; 3 Mac. & G. 205) ; Fisher v. Ronalds (12 C. B. 762, 765, per Maule, J.) ; Oslorn v. The London Dock Company (10 Exch. 698, 701, per Alders......