« 上一頁繼續 »
Defence to breach of duty in and about the subject-matter of this action, a claim
and he says that, although he denies that under the circumagainst a solicitor for stances he was bound to do so, yet in fact he did inform the negligence. Registrar of the said Court, in the said Court, that the amount
to be paid to the said D. had been settled at £19 48., and that that amount had been paid to the said solicitor of the said D., and he also says that the said solicitor also communicated the said fact to the said Registrar before leaving the Court.
6. The defendant says that if the plaintiff's name was inserted in the list of debtors as alleged in paragraph 6 of the statement of claim, it was not so inserted by reason of any negligence on his part, or from any cause for which he is liable, and he further says that any injury sustained by the plaintiff was not the direct consequence of such insertion.
Reply. The plaintiff takes and joins issue on the defendant's statement of defence.
Claim against Defendants in the Alternative for Breach of Con
tract to take Debentures, &c. (6). Alternative 1. The plaintiffs are a limited company. claim for breach of
2. The defendant L. carries on business as a financial agent contract to in Paris. take de bentures.
(a) In the absence of a usage to the contrary, a broker purchasing
stock to fulfil a contract entered into by him for his principal, but which When the principal fails to make good, cannot recover from his principal. broker may (Child v. Vorley, 8 T. R. 614.) But where there is a nsage on the Stock
Exchange that brokers should be responsible to each other on time con“dif. tracts, and the seller's broker is obliged to pay money in consequence of ferences." his principal's default, he may sue the principal for it as money paid for
the principal (Smith v. Lindo, 27 L. J. C. P. 335, Ex. Ch.); and in such cases it is immaterial whether or not the principal knew of the usage, (S. C., and Grissell v. Bristone, L. R. 4 C. P. 36, 49.) In the erent of the death or bankruptcy of the principal, whereby he will be unable to take up the stock the broker has bought for him on his own credit, the broker is justified in immediately selling the stock and claiming the difference against the bankrupt's estate, subject to a set-off for any loss
(6) As to the correctness of joining both defendants see ante, pp. 7–12.
3. The defendant T. is a solicitor.
4. The plaintiffs' company was registered on the 17th of Alternative December, 1877, and a chairman, directors, and other officers claim for
breach of were appointed, and was incorporated for the purpose of con- contract to structing and completing a railway through Honduras, so as to
take deconnect by a railway communication the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
5. The directors of the company invited the public to subscribe a sum estimated to be requisite for the completion of the railway, and some money was subscribed by the public on the security of the debentures of the company, but not sufficient to enable the directors to proceed with the railway and company; and in order to induce the directors not to abandon the undertaking, which they proposed to do in consequence of the want of funds, the defendant L., through the defendant T., who stated that he had authority, and which authority he then in fact had from L. to do so, promised the company that in consideration that they by their directors would allot such debentures and shares as had been and might be applied for, and would not abandon the purposes for which the company was incorporated, and would proceed to employ contractors and incur expenses and liabilities in effecting those purposes, and would deliver to T. on his behalf debentures of the company to the amount of £10,000 in blank, that he L. would subscribe or procure to be subscribed the sum of £80,000 on the security of the debentures of the company and otherwise.
6. The directors, acting upon the faith of such promises, in the month of February, 1874, accordingly allotted debentures and shares to the applicants for the same, and did not abandon the purposes for which the company was formed, and delivered to one B., as agent of the defendant L., debentures of the nominal value of £10,000 in blank.
7. The defendant L. has refused to perform his promise, and has refused to subscribe or procure to be subscribed to the funds of the company, upon the security of the funds of the
arising to the estate from such sale being made before the settling day, the customary time for selling out stock on default of the principal to take it up. (Scrimigeour's Claim, L. R. 8 Ch. 921 ; Crowley's Claim, L. R. 18 Eq. 182.)
Alternative company or otherwise, the sum of £80,000, or any amount of claim for breach of
money. contract to 8. The defendant T. represented to the plaintiffs at the time take de
of the making the promise above mentioned, that he had hentures.
authority from L. to make the promise for and on behalf of L., but L. has asserted and still asserts that T. had no such authority from him to make the said promise to the plaintiffs, so as to make him liable to subscribe the said moneys or any of them, and the plaintiffs say that in performing the matters and conditions, and in doing the acts and things herein stated, they relied upon the promise made by T. on behalf and for L., and upon the said representation of T. L. has refused to perform the said promise, alleging that T. has no such authority, and in the event of the defendant L. being held not liable in respect of the said promise, on the ground that the defendant T. had no such authority as he represented he had as aforesaid, the plaintiffs will claim the damages from the defendant T. set out in the next paragraph of this statement, and also the relief set out in paragraphs 3A and 4A.
9. The plaintiffs by reason of the premises have not only lost the moneys the defendants ought to have subscribed or to have procured to be subscribed to the funds of the said company aforesaid, but have suffered loss and have incurred and lost the expense by reason of the employment of contractors, and have incurred other expenses in and about attempting to accomplish the objects aforesaid, and have not been able to construct and complete the remainder of the said railway, and have lost the benefits and profits which the plaintiffs would have gained from the said construction and completion of the said railway, and also certain valuable concessions granted by the Government of the Republic of Honduras to the plaintiffs have been rendered of little or no value to the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs have been put to great expense in endeavouring to procure the performance by the defendant L. of the promises made as aforesaid.
The plaintiff's pray
11. That the plaintiff L. may be adjudged to subscribe for and take debentures of the plaintiffs' company for the amount of £80,000, and to pay to the company, or an officer of the same to be appointed by one of the Judges of the High Court of
Justice, the sum of £80,000 on receipt of such debentures, less Alternative any debentures already delivered to him or his agent, and also breach of in addition the defendant L. shall pay to the plaintiffs all the contract to damages they shall have incurred and may incur by reason of his refusal to perform the said promise made as aforesaid until he has subscribed, taken, and paid for the said debentures.
21. That in the event of the relief in paragraph 1A prayed for not being granted, the plaintiffs claim that the defendant L. shall pay to the plaintiff all the damages which have resulted and shall result from his refusal to perform the said promises.
31. That in the event mentioned in the 8th paragraph of plaintiff's statement of claim the defendant T. may be adjudged and ordered to subscribe for and take debentures of the plaintiff's said company to the amount of £80,000, and to pay to the said company, or to an officer of the same to be appointed by one of the Judges of the High Court of Justice, the sum of £80,000 on receipt of such debentures, less any debentures already delivered to him, and also that in addition the defendant T. shall pay to the plaintiffs the damages which may have been sustained by the plaintiffs by reason of the grievances complained of against the defendant T.
41. That if the relief prayed for against T. in paragraph 3A is not granted, the plaintiff's claim from the defendant T. all the damages which have and shall result from the committing of such grievances herein complained of against him.
5A. That they may have such further and other relief to which they may be entitled.
Action by Stockbroker against his Principal for “ Differences"
on Stock Transactions on the E.rchange (a). 1. The plaintiff is a stockbroker carrying on business at 3, W. Court, in the city of London. 2. The defendant is a licensed victualler and job master Claim by
stockcarrying on business at E., in the county of Middlesex.
broker for 3. On the 16th December, 1875, the defendant retained and “differemployed the plaintiff as a stockbroker to purchase for the defendant for delivery on the 30th December, 1875, according
(a) See note, pp. 588, 589.
Claim by stock. broker for "differences.
to the usage of the London Stock Exchange £1000 ordinary stock Caledonian Railway, at the then current market price, for commission and reward to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff accordingly on the said 16th December purchased the said stock for the defendant upon the terms aforesaid.
4. On the said 30th December the defendant did not complete the purchase of the said stock by paying for the same and taking delivery thereof, but through the plaintiff as his stockbroker and agent caused the stock to be carried over according to the usage of the said Stock Exchange to the 13th January, 1876, and so on from time to time according to the usage aforesaid down to the 14th December, 1876, on which day the defendant's account was closed by the resale on behalf of the defendant of the said stock.
5. During the period aforesaid and for the purpose of so carrying over the said stock, the plaintiff, at the request of the defendant and as his stockbroker and agent, paid according to the usage aforesaid divers sums of money for the defendant for the differences between the price of the said stock on the said 16th December, 1875, and its price on the said 30th December, 1875, and for the differences between the price of the said stock on the said days on which the said stock was so carried over as aforesaid and its price on the then next carrying over day, and also divers sums by way of contango or interest for so carrying over the said stock. The plaintiff also became entitled to receive from the defendant divers sums by way of commission for services rendered to the defendant as his stockbroker in respect of so purchasing and carrying over the said stock as aforesaid.
6. The plaintiff before action duly delivered to the defendant from time to time accounts in writing showing the prices of the said stock on each of the days on which the same was carried over as aforesaid, and the sums paid by the plaintiff for differences and for contango or interest as aforesaid, and the sums due to the plaintiff for commission.
7. The balance due from the defendant to the plaintiff on the said account was £161 188. 10d. The defendant has not paid the said balance or any part thereof. The plaintiff claims £161 188. 10d. and interest thereon from
the date of the writ herein until judgment.