Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Subject_1 Company Subject_2 Liquidation Subject_3 Expenses Subject_4 Petition for Judicial Winding-up Followed by Petition for Supervision Order instead of a Note. Facts: When a petition is already in Court for the judicial winding-up of a company, and thereafter the company resolves to wind itself up and obtain the supervision of the Court, it should for this purpose present a note in the petition already before the Court and not a new petition.
When a new petition was presented the company was found entitled only to such expenses as would have been incurred by it had a note been presented.
On 19th July 1910 Andrew Morrison Eadie presented a petition for the judicial winding-up of the Seafield Preserve Company, Limited, in which he was a shareholder, and suggested Robert Archibald Craig, C. A., as liquidator.
On 21st July the company and the liquidator thereof presented a petition for a supervision order.
Lord President — Two petitions have been presented with regard to the winding-up of this company, one by a shareholder and the other by the company. The shareholder presented his petition on 19th July, and the crave of that petition is that the company should be wound up by the Court. On 21st July the company presented a petition on its own behalf craving that the voluntary winding-up resolved on at a meeting of the Company should be continued under the supervision of the Court; and it subsequently lodged answers in the other petition.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.