Tredwen v Bourne
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1840 |
| Date | 01 January 1840 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 151 E.R. 493
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 9 L. J. Ex. 290; 4 Jur. 747. See Hawtayne v. Bourne, 7 M. & W. 595; Hawkin v. Bourne, 8 M. & W. 703.
TREDWBN v. bouk.ne. Exch. of Pleas. 1840.-Where a mining company was formed, the capital to be 30,000, in 3000 shares of 10 each ; and 2000 shares only were actually subscribed for, of which the defendant took LOO :-Held that letters subsequently written by the defendant to the directors, requiring them to call a meeting for the purpose of changing a director, were evidence to go to the jury to shew that he authorized the directors to proceed in the management of the concern with the smaller amount of capital, so as to render him liable for the price of articles supplied for the use of the mines, on the order of the directors. -The members of a mining company have authority by law (in the absence of any proof of a more limited authority), to bind each other by dealings on credit, for the purpose of working the mines, if that appear to be necessary or usual in the management of mines. [S C. 9 L. J. Ex. '290; 4 Jur. 747. See Hawtayne v. Bourne, 1 M. & W. 595 ; Hawkin v. Bourne, 8 M. & W. 703.] Debt for goods sold, and on an account stated. Plea, nuuquam indebitatus. At the trial before Kolfe, B., at the last assizes for Cornwall, if. appeared that the action was brought against the defendant as a shareholder in the " Trevvalfas Tin and Copper Mining Company," to recover the price of coals, timber, candles, &c., furnished in 1838 and 1839 to the Trewalfas Mine, in Cornwall, belonging to the company. It appeared, from the evidence of the clerk of the company, that it was formed in the year 1837, the prospectus stating that the capital was to be 30,000, in 3000 shares of 10 each. The defendant, who resided at Liverpool, took 100 shares : in all 2000 only were disposed of. There were directors, a secretary [462J and other officers, and an office in London at which the business of the company was transacted. The mines belonging to the Company were worked, and mineral raised and sold, but no profits were made by the concern. The goods in question were supplied on the order of the directors, and were necessary for the ordinary use of the mine. There was no evidence that the defendant had ever been at the mine, or had attended any meetings of the company ; but two letters signed by him and several other shareholders, of the dates of November, 1837, and February, 1838, being...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re The Norwich Yarn Company ex parte Bignold
...Ves. 540); Smdilands v. Marsh (2 B. & Aid. 673); Fisher v. Tayler (2 Hare, 218); Dickinson v. Falpy (10 B. & C. 128); Tredwen v. Bourne (6 M. & W. 461); Hawtayne v. Bourne (7 M. & W. 595); Hawken v. Bourne (8 M. & W. 703); Rkketts v. Bennett (4 C. B. 686); Bramah v. Roberts (3 Bing. N. C. 9......
-
Wilkes v Hopkins, Nichols, and Francis Bishop
...of bills: Dickson v. J^alpy (5 Mann. & E. 126, 10 B. & C. 128); Bramah v. Roberts (3 New Cases, 963, 5 Scott, 172); Tred-win v. Bourne (6 M. & W. 461); Hawtayne v. Bourne (7 M. & W. 595). The authority, however, of Henry Bishop and William Bishop is in this case admitted. It is admitted tha......
-
Ex parte Arthur Charles Emery John Bradbury
...13); Crawshay v. Maule (1 Swanst. 495); Je/erys v. Smith (1 J. & W. 298); Fereday v. Wightunck (1 Euss. & Myl. 45); Tredwen v. Bourne (6 M. & W. 461); Ex parte Harrison (1 Bro. C. C.. 173); West Middlesex Waterworks Company v. Suwerkop (4 C. & P. 87); Parker v. Wells (Cooke, B. L. 52; 1 T. ......
-
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
...any one of the co-adventurers might, at any time, dispose of his shares in the concern without consulting fche rest." Tredwen v. Bourne (6 M. & W. 461) may be relied upon on behalf of the Respondents; but there the Defendants were held liable on the ground that they had by their acts author......