Sheppard v Murphy

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 15 December 1867
• Date: 15 December 1867
• Court: Chancery Division (Ireland)

V. C. Court.

SHEPPARD

and

MURPHY.

Sutton v. TathamENR 10 Ad. & El. 27.

Bayliffe v. ButterworthENR 1 Exch. Rep. 425.

Paine v. HutchinsonELR Law Rep. 3 Eq. 257.

Robins v. Edwards 15 W. Rep. 1065.

Evans v. Wood 15 W. Rep. 476.

Evans v. Wood W. Notes (1867), 256.

Biederman v. Stone Law Rep. 2 Law, C. P. 504.

Chapman v. Shepherd Law Rep. 2 Law, C. P. 229.

Taylor v. StrayENR 2 C. B. N. S. 175 (on appeal, 26 L. J. N. S. C. P. 288.

Stray v. RussellENRENR 1 El. & El. 888 (on appeal, 1 El. & El. 916.

Wynne v. Price 3 De Gex. & Sm. 310.

Phené v. GillanENR 5 Hare, 1.

Hitchcock v. GiddingsENR 4 Price, 135.

Gervais v. Edwards 2 Dr. & War. 80.

Chapman v. ShepherdELR Law Rep. 2 C. P. 229.

Biederman v. StoneELR Law Rep. 2 C. P. 504.

Evans v. Wood 15 W. Rep. 476.

Paine v. HutchinsonELR Law Rep. 3 Eq. 227.

Humphrey v. LucasENR 2 Car. & Kir. 152.

Wilson v. Tumman 6 M. & Gr. 236; Chit. Cont. 6th ed., 200.

Wynne v. PriceENR 3 De G. & Sm. 310.

Sheffield Gas Company v. HarrisonENR 17 Beav. 294.

Hawkins v. MaltbyELR L. R. 4 Eq. 572.

Emmersonƒ€™s CaseELR L. R. 2 Eq. 231; S. C. L. R. 1 Ch. Ap. 433.

Bermingham v. SheridanENR 33 Beav. 660.

Keene v. BeardENR 8 C. B. N. S. 372.

Dixon v. Bovill 3 Macq. H. L. Cas. 1.

Beaufort v. TaylorUNK 9 Jur. 813, 815.

Smethurst v. TaylorENR 12 M. & W. 545; Chit. Cont. 7th ed., p. 197.

Dixon v. Bovill 3 Macq. H. L. Cas. 1.

Taylor v. Stray 26 L. J. N. S. C. P. 185, 287.

Wilkinson v. Lloyd 7 Q. B. 27.

Bermingham v. SheridanENR 33 Beav. 660.

Emmersonƒ€™s CaseELR L. R. 2 Eq. 231.

Ward and Henryƒ€™s Case L. R. 2 Ch. Ap. 431.

Headƒ€™s CaseELR L. R. 3 Eq. 84.

Ward and Garfitƒ€™s CaseELR L. R. 4 Eq. 189.

Musgrave and Hartƒ€™s Case W. Notes (1867), p. 274.

Taylor v. StrayENR 2 C. B. N. S. 175.

Emmersonƒ€™s CaseELR L. R. 2 Eq. 231.

Bayliffe v. ButterworthENR 1 Exch. 425.

Bayley v. WilkinsENR 7 C. B. 886.

Sutton v. Tatham 10 A. & E. 27.

Taylor v. StrayENR 2 C. B. N. S. 185.

Stray v. RussellENR 1 E. & E. 888.

Humphrey v. LucasENR 2 Car. & Kir. 152.

Wynne v. PriceENR 3 De G. & Sm. 310.

Chapman v. Shepherd, and Whitehead v. IzodELR L. R. 2 C. P. 229.

Biederman v. StoneELR L. R. 2 C. P. 504.

Paine v. HutchinsonELR L. R. 3. EQ. 257

Evans v. Wood 15 W. R. 476; S. C. W. Notes (1867), p. 256.

Robins v. Edwards 15 W. R. 1065.

Hawkins v. MaltbyELR L. R. 4 Eq. 572.

Ex parte Musgrave W. Notes (1867), p. 274.

Since this case went to press, the case of Evans v. Wood has appeared in the L. B. 5 Eq. 9.

Specific Performance — Purchase of Shares in Stock Exchange — Principal and Agent.

490 THE IRISH REPORTS. Rolls. THE MASTER OF THE Rotas said that he would request the 1867. Taxing Masters to state to him what would be a proper sum to In re be deducted for their costs, by trustees lodging money under the Bow's Trustee Relief Act ; and on a subsequent day, Dec. 11, his TRUSTS. Honor said, that the Taxing Masters had certified to him that £8 would be a reasonable sum in ordinary cases ; except in very special cases, he should allow no more than that sum in future. Solicitors for the Petitioners : Messrs. Lestrange and Brett. V. C. Court. SHEPPARD v. MURPHY. 1867. Specific Performance-Purchase of Shares in Stock Exchange-Principal and Nov. g2, 25. Agent. Dec. 15. On the 21st of April, 1866, L. & Co., stockbrokers, bought on the Stock Exchange, for M., one hundred shares, in the bank of 0. G. and. Co., from K., a dealer in shares, the settling day being the 27th April. On the 25th April the shares were, by arrangement between L. & Co. and K., continued till the 15th of May, ten days after that clay being allowed, according to the rule of the Stock Excha ge, for the completion of the transfer. The bank stopped payment on the 10th of May. S., a member of the Stock Exchange, on the 24th of May, sold thirty-four shares of that bank, and. the name of M. was then " passed " to him as that of the transferee. Thereupon S. executed deeds of transfer of those shares to M.; handed the deeds, with the share certificates, to L. and Co., and was by them paid the price. M. refused to receive or execute the deeds of transfer. S., having been obliged. to pay subsequent calls, instituted a suit against M., praying specific performance, and to be indemnified against past and future liabilities in respect of the thirty-four shares. Held, that such a suit could not be maintained by S. against M., there being no privity of contract between them. Held, also, that it was no objection that the suit was instituted in respect of the thirty-four shares only. Held, also, that the continuance of the shares was within the scope of L. and Co.'s authority, as brokers for M. THE cause petition in this case was filed by Mr. Samuel Gurney Sheppard, a stockbroker, and member of the London Stock Ex EQUITY SERIES. 491 change against the Respondent, Mr. William Murphy, a gentle- Y. C. Court. man residing at Belfast, in Ireland. 1867. On the 21st of April, 1866, Robert Murphy, the brother of the simmum Respondent, and as his agent, instructed Messrs. Lowndes, Surgey, v. Mtnipuy. and Woolley, stockbrokers in London, to purchase for the Respon dent 100 shares in Overend, Gurney, and Co. (Limited), and also 150 shares in the Credit Foncier and Mobilier of England. (Tiimited). On that day-, Messrs. Lowndes, Surgey, and Co., bought the shares, and furnished to Robert Murphy this bought note :- " Bought for William Murphy, Esq., 100 X. 8. d. Overend. Gurney shares at 1i discount, . 1387 10 0 (£15 paid), Stamps, 7 2 6 Brokerage, 12 10 0 For 27th of .April. No. 7 Finch-lane, E. C., 21st of April, 1866. " For LOWNDES, SURGEY, and WOOLLEY, Brokers, Signed., J, S. BAYWATER." On the 25th of April, Robert Murphy handed to the brokers the Respondent's cheque for the whole purchase money of both classes of shares, and it was arranged between Robert Murphy and Messrs. Lowndes, Surgey, and Co., that the completion of the purÂÂÂchase might be carried over from the 27th of April until the 15th of May, the settling day next after the 27th of April. On the 10th of May, Overend, Gurney, and Co. (Limited), stopped payment, and on the following day a petition to wind up that company was presented. An order to wind up the Company was made on the 10th of June. By the custom of the Stock ExÂÂÂchange, stock or shares may be transferred to the purchaser at any time, not later than the tenth day after the settling day fixed by the parties to the contract. After stating to the above effect, the petition stated that on the 24th of May the Petitioner sold on the Stock Exchange, London, thirty-four shares in Overend, Gurney, and Co. (Limited), to members of the Stock Exchange. Thereupon the Respondent's name was passed to the Petitioner, as the name 492 THE IRISH REPORTS. V. C. Court. of the transferee of those thirty-four shares ; and. the Petitioner then executed to the Respondent two transfer deeds (one of thirty the other of four shares), which deeds, together with the share cerÂÂÂtificates, were handed to the brokers, who paid the purchase money to the Petitioner, and the Petitioner alleged that thereupon and acÂÂÂcording to the rules of the Stock Exchange, the relation of vendor and purchaser as to the thirty-four shares was constituted between the Petitioner and the Respondent. Subsequently, a call of £10 per share was made on the shareholders of Overend, Gurney, and. Co. (limited). The Petitioner being, according to the books of the company, the holder of those thirty-four shares, was placed on the list of contributories, and was obliged to pay the amount of that call. The prayer of the petition was, that the Respondent should be ordered to perform specifically the contract in the petition mentioned, reÂÂÂspecting those thirty-four shares, that the Respondent might be ordered to pay to the Petitioner the amount of the call, with inÂÂÂterest, and to indemnify the Petitioner against all future calls, and. for general relief. The Respondent, by his answering affidavit, alÂÂÂleged that Robert Murphy was not authorized by him to continue the transaction from the 27th of April until the 13th of May, and. that he was not bound by that transaction. He also resisted the prayer of the petition on the ground that there was no privity of contract between the Petitioner and himself ; that the shares were now incapable of being transferred to him., and that under the cirÂÂÂcumstances, the bank having stopped payment, and being ordered to be wound up, specific performance should not be decreed. From affidavits made on behalf of the Petitioner by members of the London Stock Exchange, it appeared that in dealings for shares the custom was, that the broker, when instructed to buy or sell for clients, agrees to purchase from, or sell to, a dealer or jobber in shares. The purchaser's broker, on or before the settling day agreed on, passes, to the dealer or other person from whom he has agreed to purchase, the name of the person for whom he bought, or to whom the shares are to be transferred. The dealer or other vendor has a right to pass on that name to any person from whom he has agreed to buy any similar shares ; and any person to whom that name is thus passed has a similar right ; so that, when dealings in shares have been numerous, the trans feree's name may be passed through several vendors. The person V. a Court. to whom the name is last passed transfers the shares to the 1867. purchaser, whose broker is bound, by the custom of the Stock Q QHEPPARD Exchange, to accept transfers of the shares from, and to complete v. Mua.pirr. the purchase with, the person or persons to...