William John Richardson and Six Others, on behalf of themselves and of all other the proprietors or shareholders and partners of and in the company or partnership called, the British Iron Company hereinafter mentioned, except such of the said proprietors or shareholders and partners as are hereinafter named as Defendants hereto, Plaintiffs; and Sir George G. de H. Larpent and Others (Directors of the Company), Robert Small and Others (Trustees), and Robert Smith (Secretary), Defendants
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 July 1843 |
| Date | 25 July 1843 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 63 E.R. 227
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 7 Jur. 691.
[507] william john eichardson and Six others, on behalf of themselves and of all other the proprietors or shareholders and partners of and in the company or partnership called the British Iron Company hereinafter mentioned, except such of the said proprietors or shareholders and partners as are hereinafter named as Defendants hereto, Plaintiffs; and sir george G. de H. larpent and others (Directors of the Company), egbert small and others (Trustees), and egbert smith (Secretary), Defendants. July 25, 1843. [S. C. 7 Jur. 691.] The directors of a joint stock company, consisting of upwards of 500 members, made certain calls, which the majority of the shareholders paid, but which six of them, alleging that the calls were fraudulently made, refused to pay, and filed their bill on behalf of themselves and all other the shareholders, except the Defendants, against the directors, trustees and secretary of the company, praying for an account of the debts and assets of the partnership, a receiver, an injunction to restrain the Defendants and all officers and servants of the company from dealing with the partnership property, an account of the debts and liabilities of the company, and to have the property applied towards the payment of its debts and liabilities. Held, that some at least of the absent shareholders, who had paid up the disputed calls, ought to be made parties to the suit. Where a cause is set down for hearing, upon the Defendant's objection for want of parties, under the 39th Order of August 1841, the Court will assume, for the purpose of deciding that objection only, the Defendant's answer to be true. The bill stated that, in the month of April 1825, certain persons, in number 571, entered into partnership together for the purpose of working iron mines in Great Britain, and of manufacturing and selling the ores and metals to be obtained and raised from such mines, and that the terms of such partnership were contained in a òcertain indenture of settlement. The bill then set forth the indenture of settlement, which bore date the 28th of 228 RICHARDSON V. LARPENT 2 Y. & C. C. C. 508. April 1825, and which, amongst many other clauses, contained clauses to the effect that the parties thereto of the second part, called proprietors, and others who should thereafter become proprietors as therein mentioned, should form a partnership, to be called "The British Iron Company," for the term of sixty-one years, unless sooner dissolved by agreement; that the capital of the company should consist of £2,000,000 divided in 20,000 shares of £100 each; that the manage-[508]-ment of the company should be confided to sixteen directors, to be chosen from among the proprietors ; and that it should be lawful for a special general meeting, called for the purpose, from time to time to amend, alter or annul, either wholly or in part, any of the clauses of the deed or of the existing regulations. The bill then, after stating the appointment of the Defendants as directors, trustees and secretary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Evans v Coventry
...v. Stainton (16 Beav. 279); Claitgh v. Ratdiffe (1 De G. & Sm. 164); Beaumont v. Meredith (3 Ves. & B. 180); Richardson v. Larpent (2 Y. & C. C. C. 507); Richardson v. Hastings (11 Beav. 17); Minn v. Slant (15 Beav. 49); Hallett v. Dawdall (16 Jur. 462); Underwood's cote (5 De G. M. & G. 67......
-
Pare v Clegg
...Myl. & Cr. 53); De Begnis v. Armiskad (10 Bing. 109). Mr. Selwyn and Mr. Field, for the Defendant Finch, cited Richardson v. Larpent (2 Y. & C. (C. C.) 507); Williams v. Page (28 Beav. 149); Clmujh v. Ratcliffe (1 De Gex & Sm. 164); E-mns v. Stokes (1 Keen, 24). [598] Mr. R. Palmer and Mr. ......
-
Between Thomas Carlisle, on behalf of himself and all other the Shareholders in the South-Eastern Railway Company, except the Defendants to this suit, Plaintiff: and The South-Eastern Railway Company, James Macgregor, James Renshaw, Robert Browne, Henry Lewis Smale, John Bradshaw, The Right Honourable James Byng, John Charles Jack, Daniel Warren, William Gordon Thomson, Robert William Kennard, Charles Ironside; and Francis Curwen Smith, Defendants
...referred to Jones v. Garcia del Rio (Turn. & R. 297), Long v. Yonge (2 Sim. 369), Evans v. Stokes (1 Keen, 24), Richardson v. Larpent (2 Y. & C. C. C. 507), Richardson v. Hastings (7 Beav. 323), Mozley v. Alston (1 Phil. 790). Secondly. The effect of acquiescence or delay in suing where the......
-
Stupart v Arrowsmith
...of this suit. Walworth v. Holt (4 My. & Cr. 619); Apperly v. Page (1 Ph. 779); Long v. Yonge (2 Sim. 369); Richardson v. Larpent (2 Y. & C. C. C. 507); Deeks v. Stanhope (14 Sim. 57); Cooper v. Well (15 Sim. 454); Lowell v. Andrew (Ib. 581); Carpenter's case (5 De Gr. & S. 402); .Harford v.......