| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Sinclair v Brougham ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Sinclair v Brougham
''Sinclair v Brougham'' () AC 398 is an English trusts law case, concerning tracing.
==Facts==
Formed under the Building Societies Act 1836, never registered under the Building Societies Act 1874, the Birkbeck Permanent Benefit Society’s constitution, rule 35, allowed it to borrow money. Rule 97 said that losses should be shared among the two classes of shareholders in different proportions. From the start it developed a banking business, the Birkbeck Bank, but this was wound up in 1911. The four groups of creditors were (1) A shareholders who would be repaid on maturity, (2) B shareholders who had permanent shares (3) trade creditors and (4) depositors. The trade creditors and the A shareholders had their claims settled by an agreement. The liquidator brought an action to determine the others’ rights, given that technically, if the contracts for deposits were void, the depositors had no straight forward personal claim.
Neville J held that rule 35 was not ultra vires, but the power to borrow had to be for proper purposes. The whole banking business was ''ultra vires'' and so the bank’s depositors could recover nothing. In the Court of Appeal, Lord Cozens-Hardy MR, Buckley LJ held the depositors would be paid last, after the shareholders. Fletcher Moulton LJ dissented.
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「Sinclair v Brougham」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|