SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 230, 17 June 1918, Page 6

SUPREME COURT

♦ TRANSACTION IN SHARES.

In the Supreme Court on Saturday His Honour Mr. Justice Hosking heard the civil action in which 11. Norman Bell, of Auckland, brought an action against Ellis and- Mhnton, merchants, Wellington, in respect to certain company shares. Plaint ill' claimed a declaration that he was entitled to three hundred shares in Murrays Limited, and for a decrec tuat the defendants in whose names the sha'"s wu'o hold, should transfer those shares to plaintiff. The circumstances were that prior to May, 1915, the pl in.iilT » the holder of shares in both Hurrays Limited, and the New Zealand Packing Co., Ltd., the latter being a private companj Till) defendant;-; were also shareholders in the Packing Company. In H'.ls, for the convenience of tin Packing Company in making room lor new shareholders on an increase 1 of capital, it was arranged for the defendants, wh> refused" to take any of tlio new capital in the Packing Company, to transfer their shares in that company to the plaintiff, who was already a. shareholder, in order to reduce the number of sharel.o'.ders, the plaintiff giving a transfer to the defendants of three hundred of his Murray Limited shares. Under the agreement between the parties the plaintitl was to liavo 1110 dividend on < lie Murray Limited shares up to September III), It'lS, and the defendants to have the dividends on the Packing Company sh-ircs up to the same date, and on that .date the defendants wore to have the lption ol taking tho three hundred Hurrays i.iirited shares permanently, in lieu ot tho three hundred Packing Company Miires. In IfllG the-Pacing Company went into liquidation; and it was finally dissolved 011 April 30, 1917. That being so, plaintiff claimed to bo entitled to the re-transfer of his shares in Hurrays Limited, as the Packing Company shares which had belonged to the defendants, and had been transferred to plaint iff in 1915 for tho purpose already mentioned, were no longer insistence. The defendants denied this contention, and contended that the agreement gave tlieiu an option which had not been destroyed, and which they were still entitled to exerCl Aftor hearing argument, His Honour reserved judgment. Mr. H. Myers appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. T. Shailer Weston for the defendants.