網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

claim for

Justice, the sum of £80,000 on receipt of such debentures, less Alternative any debentures already delivered to him or his agent, and also 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 bentures. his refusal to perform the said promise made as aforesaid until he has subscribed, taken, and paid for the said debentures.

2A. That in the event of the relief in paragraph 14 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.

4A. 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 Exchange (a).

1. The plaintiff is a stockbroker carrying on business at

3, W. Court, in the city of London.

take de

2. The defendant is a licensed victualler and job master Claim by carrying on business at E., in the county of Middlesex.

3. On the 16th December, 1875, the defendant retained and employed the plaintiff as a stockbroker to purchase for the defendant for delivery on the 30th December, 1875, according

(a) Sec note, pp. 588, 589.

stockbroker for "differ

ences.

Claim by stockbroker 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 18s. 10d. The defendant has not paid the said balance or any part thereof.

The plaintiff claims £161 18s. 10d. and interest thereon from the date of the writ herein until judgment.

Statement of Defence and Counter-claim.

1. Except as hereinafter appears the defendant denies all the Defence to remaining allegations in the said statement of claim.

an action by a stock

broker

claiming

2. On or about the 29th day of February, 1876, the defendant instructed the plaintiff to sell the said stock, and to close "differthe account as soon as the dividend upon the said stock had ences.” been declared.

3. The market price of the stock immediately after the said dividend had been declared was £131 3s. 4d., and the plaintiff might then have sold the same at that price, and had he done so, the loss upon the transaction would have amounted to £47 10s.

4. The defendant before action paid to the plaintiff the sum of £20 on account of the said transaction, and has paid into Court the sum of £27 10s., being the balance of the said sum of £47 108.

By way of set-off and counter-claim the defendant

5. Repeats the allegations contained in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the statement of defence, and says that

6. The plaintiff, contrary to the instructions and against the will of the defendant, did not sell the said stock immediately after the dividend thereon had been declared, and did not sell the same until the 12th of December, 1876, when the same had fallen to £119 3s. 4d., whereby a loss amounting to £161 18s. 10d. has been sustained by the plaintiff.

The defendant claims :

Reply.

1. The plaintiff joins issue upon the statement of defence. 2. The plaintiff accepts the sum of £27 10s. paid by the defendant into Court in satisfaction of that part of the claim of the plaintiff in respect of which it is paid in, but the plaintiff seeks to recover the balance due to him as set forth in the statement of claim.

3. In reply to the defendant's counter-claim, the plaintiff denies that the defendant instructed him to sell the said stock immediately after the dividend thereon had been declared, or at any time previously to the 12th December, 1876.

Q Q

Reply.

Rejoinder.

The defendant joins issue on the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the plaintiff's reply.

Claim against carriers for not stopping

in transitu.

what it is.

Stoppage in Transitu (a).

Action against a Railway Company for failing to stop in
Transitu when so ordered by Owner.

1. The plaintiff is a merchant carrying on business under the style of E. and W. P. at the

London.

Works,

Lane,

2. On the 27th October, 1875, the plaintiff delivered to the defendants, and the defendants received from the plaintiff as the vendor, certain goods, namely 50 casks of composition pipe, as carriers thereof for reward to them in that behalf, consigned by the plaintiff to Messrs. H. W. and Company, of — Street, Birmingham, the purchasers and consignees of the said goods.

3. The plaintiff subsequently and before any of the goods had been delivered to Messrs. H. W. & Co. pursuant to the said consignment, and before they had claimed delivery of the same from the defendants, discovered that the said Messrs. H. W. & Co. were in insolvent circumstances, and thereupon on the 22nd November, 1875, none of the goods having been then paid for, he, as unpaid vendor, gave notice to the defendants not to deliver any part of the goods to Messrs. H. W. & Co., but to hold them to

Stoppage (a) Stoppage in transitu is the term applied to a right of an unpaid intransitu, vendor to resume the possession, with which he has parted, of goods sold upon credit before they come into the possession of the vendee, who has become bankrupt, insolvent, or embarrassed in circumstances. (Dixon v. Yates, 5 B. & Ad. 315; Bird v. Brown, 4 Ex. 786.) "The term insolvent' when it relates to the right of stoppage in transitu means a general inability to satisfy obligations evidenced by stopping payment. In such a case the vendor is allowed to countermand delivery before or at the place of destination, and to resume the possession of the goods. but it is not an unlimited right, for the vendor cannot exercise it if he has parted with the documents sufficient to transfer the property, and the vendee upon the strength of them has sold the goods to a bonâ fide purchaser without notice."-Houston's Stoppage in Transitu, p. 1.

Where the right is

lost.

the plaintiff's order, and before any of them were delivered to Claim Messrs. H. W. & Co., the plaintiff required the defendants to re- against deliver the same to him.

carriers

for not

in transitu.

4. The defendants refused and neglected to do so, and con- stopping trary to and after they had received the plaintiff's notice and order, they on the 17th December, 1875, delivered them to Messrs. H. W. & Co., who had not then paid the plaintiff for any part thereof.

5. Shortly after the said Messrs. H. W. & Co. had got possession of the goods they closed their house of business at Birmingham and absconded, and the plaintiff does not know where they are now to be found.

6. The plaintiff has never been paid for any part of the said goods, and by reason of the defendants' default in wrongfully delivering them to Messrs. H. W. & Co., as aforesaid, he has wholly lost the said goods, and the price and value thereof, namely £120.

The plaintiff claims £120.

Surveyor.

Remuneration of a Surveyor and Engineer for Services rendered in connection with a projected Railway.

1. The plaintiff was in the year 1872 and still is a civil engineer carrying on business at and the defendant is the chairman of the Rail. Co., and a director of other railway companies in the north eastern district.

2. The plaintiff in the autumn of 1872 was instructed by the defendant to prepare plans and sections for the purpose of depositing a bill in the then next session of parliament for authorising the construction of a new line of railway in North. C., between E. and B., of 11 miles in length. This line was intended to be in connection with the N. E. railway system, and was intended to be a rival line to the C. E. M. railway, then also being surveyed prior to an application for a bill in parliament.

3. The plaintiff in pursuance of such instructions, in November and December, 1872, surveyed the said line and prepared

Claim by a surveyor for remu

neration.

« 上一頁繼續 »