In re Harmony and Montague Tin and Copper Mining Company ('Spargo's Case)
(1873) L.R. 8 Ch.App. 407[1861-73] All ER Rep 261
(Judgment by: Sir G Mellish LJ)
re Harmony and Montague Tin and Copper Mining Company
'Spargo's Case'
Judges:
Sir W M James LJ
Sir G Mellish LJ
Subject References:
COMPANY
Subscriber to Memorandum
Paid-up Shares
Payment in Cash
Legislative References:
Companies Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 131) - s. 25
Judgment date: 25 January 1873
Judgment by:
Sir G Mellish LJ
I am of the same opinion.
I gave my opinion in Fothergill's Case [F9] yesterday, on the proper construction of the 25th section of the Act of 1867. I then stated, that in my opinion, if the circumstances relied on would in an action for the money due upon shares be evidence only in support of a plea of accord and satisfaction, this section would prevent their being a good defence; but that if they would support a plea of payment, then the 25th section did not prevent their being a good defence. In the present case, I am of opinion that if an action were broughtat law for the amount originally payable on these shares, there would be a valid defence, under a plea of payment. Nothing is clearer than that if parties account with each other, and sums are stated to be due on one side, and sums to an equal amount due on the other side on that account, and those accounts are settled by both parties, it is exactly the same thing as if the sums due on both sides had been paid. Indeed, it is a general rule of law, that in every case where a transaction resolves itself into paying money by A. to B., and then handing it back again by B. to A., if the parties meet together and agree to set one demand against the other, they need not go through the form and ceremony of handing the money backwards and forwards.
- Solicitors: Messrs. Kimber & Lee; Messrs. Gregory, Rowcliffes, & Rawle.