Best in textbook rentals since 2012!
ISBN-10: 1130336956
ISBN-13: 9781130336955
Edition: N/A
List price: $35.07
Mkt
30 day, 100% satisfaction guarantee!
Out of stock
We're sorry. This item is currently unavailable.
This item will ship on
Monday, April 29.
what's this?
Rush Rewards U
Members Receive:
You have reached 400 XP and carrot coins. That is the daily max!
Description:
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1879 Excerpt: ...company, must be raised by plea, as in Price v. Moulton (n), Weston v. Foster (o), Filmer v. Burnby (p). And so as to the neglect to realise the security: Mutual Loan Fund Association v. Sudlow (q). There was abundant consideration to Lalor for the giving of his note, for he was the largest shareholder. The verdict is against the weight of evidence as to the waiver. The onus of proof on the 4th and 5th pleas, is on the defendants. The entry in the manager's diary at the time, of the… effect of the arrangement, is equivalent to a written document, as it was admitted without objection, and not contradicted at the trial; while Lalor's evidence (i) 7 Be-v., 551; 13 L. J. (Ch.), 380. (o) 2 Bing., N. C, 693. (I) 7 E. & B., 431. (p) 2 M. & G., 529. (m) L. R., IC. P., 518; 35 L.J. (C.P.) (?) 5 C. B. (N. S.), 449; 28 L. J. 264. (C. P.), 108. (-) IOC. B., 561; 20 L. J. (C.P.), 102. 1878 depended entirely on memory after the lapse of four years; and Bank Of the promissory note was never got back by any of the defendants. Australasia Further, notice by letter was sent to the defendants, on February Cotchett. 29th, 1876, that the plaintiffs were going to sell, and would hold them liable for any deficiency. As to the defendants' Rule, the allegation of the 2nd plea that the company had paid the plaintiffs, is answered by the accounts, which show that the debt is still owing. The 3rd plea differs from the instrument on which it is based, which says "that action shall first be taken on the company's promissory note, &c." It is not an engagement that an action should be brought against the company before its assets should have disappeared; and there is no obligation to commence a fruitless action: Muslcet v. Rogers (r). It was on the petition ...