Powis v. Butler, 27 L. J. 249, C. P.; 4 Jur. `(N.S.) 614 page XXX xlxi Protestant Assurance Association, Re (ex parte Letts), 26 L. J. 455, Ch. lxxxi Ralph, Ex parte (re The Patent Starch Company), 3 L. T. (N.S.) 342, .. Reg. v. The Mariquita and New Granada Mining Company, 5 Jur. (N.S.) 725, Q. B. Rhydydefed Colliery Company, Ex parte, 3 De Gex and J. 80 Robson v. Earl Devon, 4 Jur. (N.S.) 245; 30 L. T. 225 .. ci cxiii lxxxix Rogers, Ex parte (re Osom's-hill Mining Company Limited), 31 L. T. 172, Bank. Royal Bank of Australia, Re, 2 Giff. 191 Royal Bank of Australia, Re (re Connell), 25 L. J. 649 Ch. Royal Bank of Australia, Re (ex parte Forrest), 29 L. J. 296, Ch.; Royal British Bank, Re (ex parte Brockwell), 26 L. J. 855, Ch. ; 3 Jur. Royal British Bank, Re (ex parte Frowd), 30 L. J. 322, Ch.; 3 L. T. (N.S.) 843 xcviii lxxxiii Royal British Bank, Re (ex parte Lee), 28 L. T. 191, Bank. lxxiv ..lxxxviii Royal British Bank v. Turquond, 25 L. J. 317, Q. B. ; 2 Jur. (N.S.) Royal British Bank, Re (ex parte Walton), 26 L. J. 545, Ch.; 3 Jur. St. George's Building Society, Re, 4 Drew. 154 Scully, Ex parte, 6 Ir. Eq. R. 72, 524... Security Mutual Life Assurance Society, Re (ex parte Harding), 31 L. T. 94 Ch. Serrel v. Derbyshire, &c., Railway Company, 9 C.B. 811 xxiv Sharpe. Ex parte (re Maresfield Patent Gunpowder Company), 32 L.T. Simpson v. The Westminster Palace Hotel Company, 2 De Gex, F. & J. Solvency Mutual Guarantee Company and the Winding-up Acts, 1848 xii li .. ix, xiv South Essex Gaslight and Coke Company, re (ex parte Stears), 1 John. 480; 29 L. J. 43, Ch. X xix Stainton v. Carron Company, 27 L. J. 89, Ch. ; 3 Jur. (N.S.) 1235; 30 page cili State Fire Insurance Company, Re, 6 L. T. (N.S.) 40, Ch. Stevens v. Security Mutual Life Assurance Society, 28 L. T. 250, Q.B... xxxlii ..lxxxiv .. Sunken Vessels Recovery Company, Re, 3 De Gex & J. 85; S. C., 2 L. T. (N.S.) 68 .. lxxx Taylor v. The Great Indian Peninsula Railway Company, 4 De Gex & J. 559 Taylor v. The Midland Railway Company, 28 Beav. 287, 6 Jur. (N.S.) 595, Ch. ; 2 L. T. (N.S.) 558 liii liv, lviii Teague, Ex parte (re The Howbeach Coal Company), 33 L. T. 360, Bank. The Queen v. The Mariquita Mining Company, 1 E. & E. 289 .. CV liv 1 xxviii .. xxviii Thomson v. Harding, 1 C. B. (N.S.) 555 799 Totty, Ex parte (ex parte Bartleman), 29 L. J. 702, Ch. Troup's case (The Electric Telegraph Company of Ireland), 29 Beav. 358 Tucker, Ex parte (re Folkestone West Cliff Hotel Company), 4 L. T. (N.S.) 529, Bank, Tarner, Ex parte (re The Llanfrynach Silver Lead Mining Company), 4 L. T. (N.S.) 154, Bank. Turner, Ex parte (re The Warwick and Worcester Railway Company, and re Prichard's claim), 30 L. J. 92, Ch.; 6 Jur. (N.S.) 1172; 3 L. T. (N.S.) 389 xix cxi cxix cxvi Ivili Universal Provident Life Association, Re (ex parte Bell), 2 Jur. (N.S.) 844, Ch.; 27 L. T. 193 Universal Provident Association, Re (ex parte Daniel), 26 L. J. 563, Ch., 3 Jur. (N.S.) 803; 29 L. T. 104, 254 lxxviii, lxxxvi Van Dieman's Land Company v. Cockerell, 1 C. B. (N.S.) 732; Walker v. M'Dowall, 3 Jur. (N.S.) 1078, Q. B.; 29 L. T. 246 Bank. Ward v. Sonth-Eastern Railway Company, 2 L. T. (N.S.) 212, Q.B. xcviii Warwick and Worcester Railway Company, Re, 27 L. J. 735, Ch. Warwick and Worcester Railway Company, Re (ex parte Kelly), 3 L. T. (N.S.) 844, Ch. Welland Railway Company v.Blake, 3 L. T. (N.S.) 678, Ex. Welsh Potosi Mining Company, Re, 29 L. T. 400, Bank; 31, L. T. 129; 32 L. T. 100; 27 L. J. 311, Ch. Welsh Potosi Lead and Copper Mining Company Limited, Re (ex parte Birch), 27 L. J. 4, Bank; 31 L. T. 19; 2 De Gex. and J. 10 lxx, xcv Welsh Potosi Mining Company, Re (Lefthouse's case), 2 De Gex and J. 69 Welsh Potosi Mining Company, Re (ex parte Tobin), 28 L. J. 44, Ch.; 4 Jur. (N.S.) 1093 .. West Ham Distillery Company, Limited, Re, 31 L. T. 44, Bank West Ham Distillery Company, Limited, Re (Whittet's case), De Gex Wheal Anne Mining Company, Re, 6 L. T. (N.S.) 38, Ch. .. page 1xxv xcix lix cviii Xxviii Wilkinson v. Cummins, 11 Hare, 337.. xi, xviii Wolverhampton Waterworks Company v. Hawksford, 7 C. B. (N.S.) 813; 5 Jur. (N.S.) 1140; 29 L. J. 121, C. P. xliv, xlvii Wood, Ex parte (re The Sunken Vessels Recovery Company), 28 L. J. Woodland v. Fear, 7 E. & B. 519 Woollaston's case (re The Home Counties and General Life Assurance Wryght v. Lindsay, 6 Jur. (N.S.) 435; in Dom. Proc.; 2 L. T. (N.S.) 63 Wrysgan Slate Quarrying Company, Re (ex parte Birch), 28 L. J. 894, Wrysgan Slate Quarrying Company, Re (ex parte Humby), 5 Jur. (N.S.) 215, Ch. ; 33 L. T. 7; 28 L. J. 875, Ch. Wyatt v. Darenth Palley Railway Company, 2 C. B. (N.S.) 114 lxxv lxxi XX iv xci lxxxiii lxxvi lxxvi, lxxxvi XXX The Law and Practice OF JOINT STOCK COMPANIES. THE Law of Partnership hitherto has been, that each partner shall be answerable for the debts and contracts of the other partners, within the reasonable scope of the business of the partnership. This law was founded upon the following principles that he who acts through an agent ought to be responsible for his agent's acts; that policy, as well as justice, prescribes that he who shares the profit of an enterprise should be subject also to its losses; that there is a moral obligation, which it is the duty of the laws of a civilized and Christian nation to enforce, to pay debts, perform contracts and make reparation for wrongs. Limited Liability is founded on the opposite principle and is designed to enable a man to avail himself of his agent's acts, if advantageous to him, and not to be responsible for them if they should be disadvantageous; to speculate for profits without being liable for losses; to make contracts, B Definition of Limited Liability. incur debts, and commit wrongs, the law depriving the creditor, the contractor, and the injured, of his rightful remedy against the property or the person of the wrongdoer, beyond the limit, however small, at which it may please him to determine his own liability. Thus it practically enables a trader to speculate for the chances of indefinite gain, without being liable for more than a small definite loss. Definition of Limited Liability. Limited Liability, which has now been adopted into our commercial legislation, does not mean, as is commonly supposed, the right to make with each of those with whom we deal a special contract that we shall not be liable beyond a named sum, for such a condition might always have been made between persons dealing together; nor is it, as some imagine, a freedom, hitherto denied to partners, to make whatever conditions of partnership they please as between themselves, for such power, also, has always existed. But Limited Liability, as now established, is a privilege given by the law to seven or more partners to make terms of partnership among themselves that shall be binding upon all other persons; that is to say, it permits A., B., and five others, to agree together that they will not pay their debts, nor perform their contracts, nor repair any wrongs they may do, beyond a limit determined by themselves, and then, by public notice of that limitation, to make the agreement inter se binding on third persons. This result is effected by depriving the persons dealing with them of the right which justice demands, and the laws of all civilized |