The Express.
London, England, 1866-11-14 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—Nov. 13.

Sittings in Banoo.—(Before the Lord Chief Baron and
Barons Bramwell, Channell, and Pigott.)
MLR V. WARD.

This was an action to recover 12L 10s., the amount of a
call upon ten shares in the Joint Stock Discount Com-
pany (Limited.) The trial took place at Guildhall, before
the Lord Chief Baron, when a verdict was entered for the
plaintiff, with leave to move to enter a nonsuit.
Mr. Serjeant Heyea now showed rause against a rule
which had been obtained by Mr. Digby Seymour, Q.C., to
enter a nonsuit. The plaintiff had sold the shares
to the defendant through a broker, and duly executed the
transfer, and he brought the actionon an implied contract to
indemnify him against calla. Shortly afterwards an order
was made for winding up the company, and the defendant
was unable to register the transfer. The question now
was whether under these circumstances the defendant was
liable. The learned se ''rant referred to a decision of the
Court of Error in a similar case, in which it was held that
although the transfer had not been registered, there was
an implied obligation on the buyer of the shares to in-
demnify the seller against calls made during the time he
was virtually the owner of the shares.
Mr. Digby Seymour, Q.C., and Mr. Henry James were
heard in support of the rule. They contended, first, that
there was no Implied undertaking to indemnify ; and,
secondly, that the plaintiff having failed to pay the calls
on some other shares he hell in the urns company accord-
ing to the articles of association, he could not demand to
have the transfer of the ten shares in question registered,
and consequently was unable to deliver the shares, and
thus complete his contract.
The Court was unanimously of opinion that the nonsuit
should not be disturbed.
Rule discharged.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.—Nov. 13.
(Letore Mr. Commissioner Winslow.)
IN RE THOMAS GIBSON..

This was a sitting for examination and discharge. The I
bankrupt, described as of 69, Fenchurch-strcet, and late of
25, Moorgate-street, merchant, owes to unsecured credi-
tors, 2,743/.; against assets, consisting of good debts, re-
turned at 4,5931.; and doubtful ditto, 296/.
Mr. Bagley appeared for the assignees, and Mr. Olive for
the bankrupt.
Mr. Bagley said that although there was apparently a
surplus of 2,336/., nothing had yet been received. The
bankrupt alleged that he had a claim for 4,5137. upon a
Mr. Alexander Robinson, but the assignees had not yet
been able to serve him with a summons with a view to
examining him upon the subject. It appeared, however.
from the investigation which had been made, that cross
actions were pending between the bankrupt and Robinson,
which were set down for trial at the sittings after the pre-
sent term. He apprehended that the bankrupt would not
be entitled to receive his order of discharge until after the
actions had been disposed of, as there was no prospect of
assets from any other source. The learned counsel said he
was also instructed to ask that the bankrupt should be
directed to file cash and goods accounts for twelve months
prior to his failure.
After hearing Mr. Olive, who said the bankrupt bad not
been in business for two years, and that his failure was
entirely owing to the conduct of Robinson in not account-
ing for property which had been realised in Alexandria,
where the bankrupt had formerly carried on business,
His Honour granted an adjournment until after the
trial of the actions, but held that it would be wine-
cemary to require the bankrupt to furnish additional
accounts.