The Express.
London, England, 1865-12-23 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

EQUITY COURTS.—Dix. 22.
(Before the Lord Oheweellor)
CO AGRICULTURIST CATTLE 13SCILLNCE COMPANY.
ET PART' STANHOPE.
This was an appeal motion from a decision of the Muter
of the Rolls, who bad declined to place the name of the
easeutria of the Hoe. and Rev. F. Stanhope on the list of
soiribstories of the above company. In the year 1845,
Mr. Suuhope took 100 ahem in the company, paid a
posed a share on allotment, and signed the deed
al settlemeet, and in May, 1847, be received a
dividend of a share. Ie 1848, the company
toes in ditEcultiee, and the shareholders became dissatisfied,
mod en arrangement was come to at certain special meetings
of the company, by which a call of 4/. per share was to be
wade, which was not to be paid by the shareholders ; and
ray of those whochose might transferitheir shares to persons
hy whom they would be forfeited for non-can went
el calls, and the original shareholders would be
freed from their liability. In August, 1819, Mr. Stanhope
entered into sa arrangement with the directors for the
forfeiture of his shares, which was duly carried, and •
resolution of the directors entered in the books, ordering
that bin shares should be forfeited, and from that time Mr.
Mashope was never afterwards treated as a shareholder.
Is 1861 the company was uttered to be wound up ; and the
ellkial liquidator baying placed several persons, amongst
these Mr. stanhope, on the list of contributories, &motion
wee made, in the first instance in the Owe of a Mr. Brother-
hood, before the Mutual the Rolls, caking that his same
should be expuoged from the list, ou the ground that his
shares had been forfeited and he himself relieved from all
Msbility under the arrangement which had been made
p the general (veriest of the shareholders io meeting
assembled is 1848. His Honour was of opinion that
Mr. Brotherhood was anointed, and ordered his
awn to be struck out of the list. In another and ,
inner rose, that of Lad Belhaven, the same course was
buoyed, and the decision on appeal to the Lords Justioe
slanned. Then came a case of Mr. Speakman, in which the
Master of the Rolle followed his previous ruling, but on
appeal to Lord Westbury, his locdship held that the
arrangement was inoperative to free Mr. Speakman, and
ordered him to be made a contributory. On the present case,
that of Mr Staohope, coming before the Master of the Rolls,
he said that be was unable to distinguish this case in sub-
tilise. from Lord Belhaysa's, nor could he diatieguish Rheas
that of Spoiliman ; but he approved of the decision of the
Leeds Justices in Lord Belhaven's case, and differed from
Lord Westbury in that of Spacknan ; and be ordered Mr.
Stanhope's name to be erased from the list. On this
as appeal was brought to the Lords Justices ; bat as
their lordihips had pronounoed on the previous ease of Bel-
haven. and differed from the opinion of Lord Westbury in
that of Sparkman, it was arranged that this appeal should
be heard by the Lord Chun:eller, with a view to put an
sod to the eristiog conflict of decision.
Sir H. Cairns and Mr. Bash were for the official liqui-
dator io the appeal ; Mr. Hobhouse and Mr. J. Peer-
sea on the other side.
Judgment was deferred.