Taylor v Barclay
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 November 1828 |
| Date | 19 November 1828 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 57 E.R. 769
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 7 L. J. Ch. (O. S.) 65. See The Charkieh, 1873, L. R. 4 A. & E. 86; Foster v. Globe Venture Syndicate, Limited [1900], 1 Ch. 814. See also the preceding case.
Pleading. Public Policy.
BIM. J13. TAYLOR V. BARCLAY 769 [213] taylor . barclay.(!) Nov. 12, 19, 1828. [S. C. 7 L. J. Ch. (0. S.) 65. See The GharTcieh, 1873, L. E. 4 A. & E. 86; loafer v. Globe Venture Syndicate, Limited [1900], 1 Ch. 814. See also the preceding case.] Pleading. Public Policy. To prevent a demurrer to a bill it was falsely alleged in it that a revolted colony of Spain had been recognized by Great Britain as an independent State; the Court is bound to know, judicially, that the allegation is false, and not to give it the intended effect. The bill in this case prayed a discovery only. It alleged that, in August 1825, Barclay & Co., representing themselves to be the agents of the Government of the Federal Republic of Central America, which, wax a sovereign ami independent State, recognized and treated as such by His Majesty the King of these realms, and in a state of amity with this country, publicly announced their intention of raising a loan for the said Republic, by [214] open competition, to be paid by instalments: that Barclay & Co. proposed to raise such loan upon the security of bonds or special obligations of the said Government; and represented that the bonds, or special obligations, were not to be delivered, in the first instance, to the subscribers to the loan; but that certificates of obligations, purporting to be issued by the said Government, should be given to them on payment of the first instalment, and that, on payment of the last instalment, arid on production of the certificates to the then contractor for or buyer of the loan, special obligations of the Government would be delivered to the holders of the certificates : that it was afterwards publicly advertised that Powles & Co. were the highest bidders, and had contracted for the loan; that, in all the advertisements, the two firms were represented as distinct parties to the transaction, and as having no common or joint interest therein : that the Plaintiff was induced, by Messrs. Powles, to purchase of them seventeen of the certificates, and afterwards duly paid, by the direction of Powles & Co., five of the instalments of the purchase-money into a banking-house, to the credit and on the account of Barclay & Co.; whereupon Powles & Co. signed receipts upon the certificates : that the Plaintiff, by the advice of Powles & Co. forebore to pay the sixth instalment: that such advice was given, as the Plaintiff afterwards discovered, with the view of making the Plaintiff commit a forfeiture of the former instalments; that Barclay & Co. were not authorized by the Government (as the Plaintiff had also since discovered) to make the said contract, or to bind the said Government thereby; and that the same was well known to Powles & Co. : that the Plaintiff had also recently discovered that, instead of Barclay & Co. having publicly sold the [215] certificates to the highest bidder, it had been clandestinely arranged, between them and Powles & Co., that the latter should be the nominal contractors for the loan, and purchasers of the certificates; and that Barclay & Co. should be secretly partners with them in the transaction : that the representations made by Barclay & Co., that they were authorized to make the contract, and that they had sold the certificates, by public sale, to Powles & Co., were made in order to induce persons to purchase the certificates at higher prices than they would have given if they had known the real nature of the transaction ; and that such conduct was a fraud upon the Plaintiff and the other persons who had purchased the certificates in ignorance thereof : that the Plaintiff was about to commence an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner & Keeler Ltd (Directions: Existence of East Germany); Rayner & Keeler Ltd v Courts & Company
...country, it is the duty of the Court itself to take notice of it. We ought not to give judgment on a hypothesis that may be false. In Taylor v. Barclay, decided in 1828, in 2 Simons' Reports, p. 213, the Vice-Chancellor said: "I conceive it is the duty of the Judge in every Court to take no......
- Duff Development Company v Kelantan Government
-
CF v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
...has been recognised by the Crown, whether a foreign government has been recognised either de jure or de facto (e.g. Taylor v Barclay (1828) 2 Sim.213; Luther v Sagor [1921] 1 KB 456; [1921] 3 KB 532) and as to the sovereign status of a foreign state or government ( Sultan of Johore v Abuba......
-
Duff Development Company v Kelantan Government
...the parties. Information of this character was obtained from a Secretary of State and accepted without question in ( Taylor v. Barclay 1828 2 Sim. 213) and ( Mighell v. Sultan of Johore L.R. 1894, I.Q.B. 149); and those cases were followed in ( Foster v. Globe Syndicate L.R. 1900 I. Chanc......
-
The Orams Case, the Judgments Regulation and Public Policy: An English and European Law Perspective
...J. Du gard, Recognition an d the United Nations (Grotius, 1987), 108–111.49 is principle dates back to Taylor v. Barclay (1828) 2 Sim 213, 57 ER 769, per Vice-Chancellor Shadwell at 220–221. e ‘one voice principle’ was mos t famously articu lated in the e Arantzazu Me ndi [1939] AC 256, ......