The Newry, Company, Railway Company v Moss
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 May 1851 |
| Date | 10 May 1851 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 51 E.R. 211
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 20 L. J. Ch. 633; 15 Jur. 437.
[64] the newry, &c., railway company v. Moss. May 10, 1851. [S. C. 20 L. J. Ch. 633 ; 15 Jur. 437.] A bill by a railway company, to compel a mortgagee of shares not standing in his name to pay the calls, cannot be sustained. A. advanced money to B. on the security of railway shares. They were transferred into the name of C., to secure A., and subject thereto for B. C. died insolvent. Held, that A. was not liable, at the suit of the company, for the arrears of calls on the shares. In 1847 the Defendants Messrs. Moss & Co., bankers, made an advance of £16,627 to a Mr. Cameron, a sharebroker, on the security of a considerable number of shares in the Newry, &c., Railway Company. The shares were transferred into the name of Sudlow, the cashier of the bankers, for securing the money advanced, and subject thereto for Cameron. In November 1847 Sudlow died, and there being arrears of calls due, the company proceeded at law against his executor, who pleaded plenk administravit. Sudlow, in fact, left no assets available for payment of the calls in arrears. [65] The railway company, thereupon, filed this bill against Messrs. Moss, insisting that Sudlow was a mere trustee for them: that in equity they were the real owners of the shares, and, as such, liable to pay the calls. The bill prayed a declaration, that Sudlow, at his death, held the shares for the benefit of the Defendants, and that the Defendants were the real and beneficial owners thereof, and, as such, liable for the calls in arrear on the 510 shares. It prayed for an account and a decree against Messrs. Moss for payment. The Defendants alleged that Sudlow held the shares for the benefit of Cameron, who was the beneficial owner thereof, and entitled to redeem them. Some evidence was entered into, on the part of the Plaintiffs, tending to shew that the Defendants had treated with the company as the owners of the shares, and that the company had notice that Sudlow had no beneficial interest therein. The cause now came on for hearing. Mr. Roupell and Mr. James Anderson, for the Plaintiffs. The Defendants are 212 NEWRY, ETC., RAILWAY COMPANY V. MOSS 12 BEAV, M. the real and substantial owners of the shares: they are, in equity, entitled to the full benefit of this property, and, consequently, must be held liable to the obligations attaching to it. Even a Court of law recognises such a liability by way of defence, as in Goddard v. Hodges (1 Cr. & Mee. 33), where it was determined...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The North of England Joint Stock Banking Company, and of The Joint Stock Companies Winding-up Acts, 1848 and 1849. Straffon's Executors' Case
...v. Angas (3 Exch. Eep. 805), Ness v. Armstrong (4 Exch. Rep. 21), Jackson v. Cocker (4 Beav. 59), The Newry, &c., Railway Company v. Moss (14 Beav. 64), Lawes's case (1 De G. M. & G. 421). Mr. J. V. Prior referred the Lord Chancellor to Beaveley's case (1 De G. & S. 550 ; 1 Hall&T. 118). Ap......
-
Dunster v Lord Glengall
...Whitworth v. GaugainENR 1 Ph. 728. Jones v. JonesENR 8 Sim. 633. Boyle v. FarrellENR 12 Cl. & Fin. 740. Newry Railway Company v. MossENR 14 Beav. 64. Burt v. Bernard 3 Dr. & W. 464. Hulkes v. DayENR 10 Sim. 41. Evans v. Evans 2 Ir. Chan. Rep. 242. Ex parte Dobson Mont. Dea. & De G. 685. Dun......