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.
One of the signatures to the contract thus laid before Parliament, and mentioned in the thirtieth section of the statute, was that of ‘Will m Bisset, per mandate, for W m C. Macdonald, Edinburgh, five shares, L.250;’ without which sum, consequently, there would not have been subscriptions to the amount of four-fifths of the estimate.
The first meeting of the Company, after the statute was obtained, was held at Dundee on the 16th June 1826, being the day appointed by the 14th section of the act, but at that time the full amount of L.27,600 had not yet been subscribed. The subscriptions were, however, speedily completed to that sum, and the Company commenced operations.
At meetings on the 21st July and 6th October 1826, Mr Miller, one of the subscribers of the original contract, along with three other parties to it, protested against the Company going on, in consequence of not having had the full sum subscribed previous to the meeting of 16th June; but they offered to withdraw their opposition, provided their names were withdrawn from the list of subscribers. The meetings to which the proposal was made refused to comply with it; and the work proceeded and was carried on in terms of the statute.
The pursuers acquiesced in this judgment, and having, in the meantime, got a supplementary contract signed by subscribers to the amount of 102 shares, or L.5100, (making, along with the former contract which had been produced in Parliament, the full sum of L.27,600,) they abandoned their former action, and raised the present against Dr Macdonald, (the heir of Mr Macdonald), Mr Miller, and other alleged partners of the Company who still refused to pay the calls which were made upon them in terms of the statute.
st , Dr J. C. Macdonald, the representative of Mr Macdonald, denied that Mr Bisset, who had signed the original contract as his mandatary, had held any power which authorised him to do so, and that, consequently, his alleged constituent was not bound by that signature, or by the contract.
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.