The Kingsbridge Flour Mill Company v Same
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 June 1848 |
| Date | 29 June 1848 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 154 E.R. 676
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S C 17 L J Ex 252, 12 Jur 542 Distinguished, Smith v Hull Glass Company, 1849, 8 C B 668
ridley v 'I he plymouth, htonehouhe, and devonport grinding and baking company the kingkbridge flour mill company v same June !29, 1848 -Joint stock companies completely registered under the 7 & 8 Viet c, 110, are bound by contracts made by a competent boaid ot directors, though not under seal, 01 made in compliance with the requisites of the 41th section , though semble, they cannot enforce such contracts-But persons seeking to render those companies liable on contracts made with the directors, must shew their authority to bind the Company, erther by the production ot the registered deed of settlement, or by proof that the body of shareholders authorised particular individuals to make contracts binding on the Company A ratification or admission by a competent board of directors will bind the Company [S C 17 L J Ex 252, 12 Jur 542 Distinguished, Smith v Hull Glaf,-, Company, 1849, 8 C B 668] Assumpsit The first count of the declaration stated that the Company, before and at the time of making of the promise, &c, was a joint-stock company, completely registered and incorporated according to and by virtue of the provisions of the 7 & 8 Viet c 110, intituled &c that the complete registration of whrch Company \\as 2 EX, 712. RIDLEY V. THE PLYMOUTH GIUNBCNC! AND BAKING CO. 677 duly certified according to the provisions of the same act, by the Registrar of joint-stock companies : that the Company held certain premises, as tenant to one J. Biokford, at the yearly rent of 301.; and in consideration tiiat the plaintiff, at the request of the Company, had become tenant to the Company of those premises, at the rent of 51. per quarter, the Company promised the plaintiff', that, so long as they continued tenant to J. Bickford, and so long as the plaintiff continued tenant to them, they would indemnify and save him harmless from and against the payment of any of the rent so payable to .(. Bickford, over and above the amount of rent payable to them which might from time to time be due and in arrear, and from and against any distress or costs, charges, damages, or expenses which should or might lie made, rise, or happen to the plaintiff, for or by reason of the non-payment of the rent, from and against the payment whereof the Company so promised to indemnify him. Averment, that, during the continuance of the tenancies, and [712] at a time when only a small part of the rent payable to the Company was due and in arrear, the Company, disregarding their promise, would not indemnify or save harmless the plaintiff, by means whereof a distress was made by J. Bickford on divers goods and chattels of the plaintiff then being in and upon the said premises, for the sum of 1571. 10s., then due and in arrear from the Company to J. Bickford, for and in respect of the rent so payable to him, and the plaintiff was compelled to pay 371. 10s., together with the costs of the distress, to redeem his goods, &c. There was also a count for money...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The East Holyford Mining Company v The National Bank
...2 H. L. C. 497. Holt's CaseENR 22 Beav. 48. D'Arcy v. Tamar Railway CompanyELR L. R. 2 Ex. 158. Ridley v. Plymouth Grinding CompanyENR 2 Ex. 711, 717. Ernest v. NichollsENR 6 H. L. C. 401. Howbeach Company v. TeagueENR 5 H. & N. 151. Woolaston's CaseENR 4 De G. & J. 437. Coleman v. RichesEN......
-
The Joint Stock Companies Winding-Up Act, 1848; and of The Joint Stock Companies Winding-Up Amendment Act, 1849; and The German Mining Company The Case of Samuel Ball, William Haigh, Francis Ramsbotham, William Rothert, William Wood-Roffe, and Emily Duncan Harvey. Exparte William Chippendale, Charles Chippendale, and Thomas Hughes. Before the Lords Justices
...(2 Car. & P. 325), Smith v. Coleman (7 Jurist, 1053), Premiergast v. Turton (1 Y. & C. C. C. 98), Ridley v. Plymouth Banking Company (2 Exch. 711). the solicitor-general and Mr. Greene, for the Eespondents. [30] It cannot be said that the directors have exceeded their powers. Hawtayne v. Bo......
-
The Official Manager of the Athenaeum Life Assurance Society v Pooley
...British Bank v. [297] Twguand (5 E. & B. 248; 6 E. & B. 327); Ridley v. Plymouth, Stonehouse and Davenport Grinding and Baking Company (2 Exch. 711); Kingsbridge Flow Mill Company v. Plymouth, &c., Grimling and Baking Company (Ibid. 718); Hillv. Manchester and Salford Water Works Company (2......
-
Royal British Bank v Turquand
...ground therefore, suggested by [330] the Court below, of distinction between this case and Ridley v. Plymouth Grinding and Bakiny Company (2 Exch. 711), Kings-bridge Flow Mill Company v. Plymouth Grinding and Baking Company (2 Exch. 718), Smith v. The Hull Glass Company (11 Com. B. 897), an......