翻訳と辞書 ・ Birch Run Expo Center
・ Birch Run High School
・ Birch Run Premium Outlets
・ Birch Run Township, Michigan
・ Birch Run, Michigan
・ Birch sap
・ Birch Services
・ Birch Street
・ Birch syrup
・ Birch tar
・ Birch Tor and Vitifer mine
・ Birch Town, Virginia
・ Birch Township, Beltrami County, Minnesota
・ Birch Tree, Missouri
・ Birch trumpet
・ Birch v Cropper
・ Birch Vale
・ Birch Wathen Lenox School
・ Birch Wilson
・ Birch's law
・ Birch's theorem
・ Birch's Views of Philadelphia
・ Birch, Ashland County, Wisconsin
・ Birch, California
・ Birch, Essex
・ Birch, Greater Manchester
・ Birch, Wisconsin
・ Birch-bark roof
・ Birchall
・ Birchall (surname)
|
|
| Birch v Cropper ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Birch v Cropper
''Birch v Cropper'' (1889) 14 App Cas 525 is a UK company law case concerning shares. It illustrates the principle of exhaustion, that the rights attached to a share in an article would be presumed exhaustive, although one should construe the nature of a share with a starting presumption of equality.
The principle is now subject to the advice given by Lord Hoffmann in ''AG of Belize v Belize Telecom Ltd'' and ''ICS Ltd v West Bromwich BS''.
==Facts==
The company sold its canal business to another company and made a profit. It proposed to wind up and distribute the £500,000 remaining to shareholders. There were 130,000 ordinary shares. There were also 30,000 preference shares (with 5% preference on dividends), some one third paid up, some fully paid up. There was nothing in the articles concerning the preferential shares' entitlements on winding up. The company argued that the preferential shares were just like debentures, and they should only get their money back. The preferential shareholders argued that they should be entitled to a priority in the distribution.
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「Birch v Cropper」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.
|
|