Secretarial practice

Bibliographic data

Monograph

Identifikator:: 1828236004

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-249926

Document type:: Monograph

Title:: Secretarial practice

Edition:: fourth edition

Place of publication:: Cambridge

Publisher:: W. Heffer & Sons Ltd

Year of publication:: 1930

Scope:: viii, 987 Seiten

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Chapter

Document type:: Monograph

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Chapter IX. Other matters relating to shares

Collection:: Economics Books

106 SECRETARIAL PRACTICE Clauses Acts there is not, but the Court has jurisdiction to order the removal of a shareholder's name from the register (Ashworth v. Bristol Railway Co., 15 L.T.N.S. 561). The company cannot make the substitution without the authority of the Court. If, however, the company after discovering the infancy of the shareholder continues to. treat him as such it may be precluded by laches and delay from obtaining the substitution of the name of the transferor for that of the transferee (re National Bank of Wales, Massey and Giffin’s Case (1907), I Ch. 582; Parson's Case, LR. 8 Eq. 656). A fortiori if a company has allowed an infant to transfer shares of which he is the registered holder and has accepted and registered his transferee, who is an adult, it cannot go behind it and avoid the original transfer to the infant (Goock’s Case, L.R. 8 Ch. 266). So if a company registers an infant knowing that he is such it would seem that it cannot afterwards repudiate him. A transfer of shares to or by an infant is voidable, but not void. Where the company is a going concern the Court may deter- mine whether an infant ought to retain the shares or not (Reid's Case, 24 Beav. 318). Assuming then that an infant has been registered as a share- holder, and that the company does not desire to have his name removed, or is precluded from doing so as above mentioned, to what extent can he insist upon exercising rights as a share- holder while he remains an infant? This may be dealt with under the following heads: — 1. Voting.—In the case of companies regulated by the Companies Clauses Acts, express provision is made (s. 79 of the Act of 1845) enabling him to vote by his guardian or guardians. In the absence of any similar provision in the articles of association of a registered company it is thought that an infant cannot vote by his guardian at a general meeting of such a company, but that in the absence of any prohibition in the articles he could vote personally. An authority to vote by his guardian might be construed as implying a prohibition against voting personally. 2. Dividends.—In general an infant is incapable of giving a legal discharge for money paid to him; but where an infant has received money be cannot demand it over again on attaining his majority (Earl of Buckinghamshire v. Drury, 2 Eden. 72). And although the receipt of dividends by him does not prevent him from repudiating his shares, yet if he does so he must repay the dividends which he has received (Bentinck’s Case, 18 Sol. Jour. 224). An infant shareholder is entitled as a

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Secretarial practice

Monograph

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Monograph

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation