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 XXI. Powers of attorney

Collection:: Economics Books

POWERS OF ATTORNEY 273 of that other company’s members or creditors, and such person may exercise the same powers on be- half of the corporation which he represents as that corporation could exercise if it were an individual shareholder or creditor (s. 116). If a power of attorney is granted by a person who at the time is of such unsound mind that he has no knowledge of what he is doing and only signs his name as a mere mechanical act, the instrument is void. Thus where a company trans- ferred shares, acting on a deed of transfer executed under a power of attorney which was signed by the shareholder while of unsound mind it was held that the power was void and the deed of transfer a nullity [Daily Telegraph Newspaper Co., Ltd. v. M’Laughlin (1904), A.C. 776; see also the decision of the Privy Council in Molyneux v. Natal Land, &c., Co., Ltd. (1903), A.C. 555]. The position arising if the principal was sane at the time of execution, but subsequently becomes insane, will be dealt with later. The instrument appointing the attorney should always be Sealing executed under seal, for although sealing is not necessary for any purpose of delegation, a power of attorney, which, as is nearly always the case, confers authority to execute a deed, must itself be in the form of a deed. [In re Seymour (1913) 1 Ch. 475 at p. 481.] Certain foreign companies, however, do not possess a Common Seal, and sealing is then impossible. A case of this kind came under judicial notice in Colonial Gold Reef, Lid. v. Free State Rand Ltd. (1914), 1 Ch. 382, where the articles of association of an English company provided that ‘the instrument appointing a proxy shall be in writing under the hand of the appointor or his attorney duly authorised in that behalf, or, if such appointor is a corporation, under its Common Seal.’ A South African company having no Common Seal and not required to have one was a shareholder, and by writing under the hands of two directors appointed an attorney in England to vote on its behalf, with power of substitution; it was held that the requirement of a Common Seal in the Article only applied to corporations having a Common Seal according to English law and that the instrument in question could Le recognised as valid and effective. Next, as evidence that the signature is that of the alleged donor, the instrument should be attested, and it is desirable that there should be two witnesses, since this is reauii. u ior the transfer of certain stocks. Moreover, powers for use abroad should always be attested by two witnesses: if for use in the Dominions and Colonies they (f} Lunatics. Attestation.

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Secretarial practice

Monograph

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Monograph

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation