翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ R v Peacock
・ R v Pearson; Ex parte Sipka
・ R v Penguin Books Ltd
・ R v Perka
・ R v Peverett
・ R v Plant
・ R v Powley
・ R v Prince
・ R v Pritchard
・ R v Prosper
・ R v Quick
・ R v Rahey
・ R v Reed
・ R v Registrar General, ex p Segerdal
・ R v Richards
R v Richardson
・ R v Rodgers
・ R v Ron Engineering and Construction (Eastern) Ltd
・ R v Ruzic
・ R v Ryan
・ R v S (RD)
・ R v Saibene
・ R v Sansregret
・ R v Saskatchewan Wheat Pool
・ R v Sault Ste-Marie (City of)
・ R v Savage
・ R v Schoombie
・ R v Schoonwinkel
・ R v Seaboyer
・ R v Secretary of State for Employment, ex p Seymour-Smith


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

R v Richardson : ウィキペディア英語版
R v Richardson

''R v Richardson'' (1758) (97 ER 426 ) is a foundational UK company law case, which established that companies had an inherent power to remove officials or directors for a reason. Lord Mansfield held, further, that only the members of the company itself (not a court) could determine the validity of the reasons.
==Facts==
Nine portmen (like aldermen, but town councillors of a port city) of the chartered Corporation of Ipswich claimed in a writ of ''scire facias'' that they had been ejected wrongfully and therefore that the contemporary portman was an impostor. It was alleged that they had wilfully failed to attend "four occasional great Courts". These were yearly public meeting events at the "Moot Hall" to conduct the borough's business. It was alleged by the town's bailiffs that the portmen should have attended every meeting. There was a hearing where the portmen gave reasons for not attending. However the bailiffs did not accept them, and the portmen were dismissed. After the nine portmen had been dismissed, an election meeting was held, and a bailiff, Thomas Richardson was chosen. The dismissed portmen alleged this was unlawful, because their dismissals were improper and so there was no vacancy. They argued the dismissals were improper both because it was "not a removal by the whole body, at a corporate assembly: but by a particular Court",〔(1758) 1 Burr 517, 526〕 and also because the cause was not enough to justify removal by those bailiffs.

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「R v Richardson」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.