149:
31:
400:
incorporated twelve persons by name, to elect a chaplain for the church of Kirton, in
Lincolnshire , and by another clause three of the twelve were to chuse a chaplain to officiate in the church of Sandford, within the parish of Kirton , with the consent and approbation of the major part of the inhabitants of Sandford. Upon a late vacancy, two of the three chose a chaplain, with the consent of the major part of the inhabitants of Sandford, the third dissented; and the question was, Whether this was a good choice."
160:
construction of charters, and I am of opinion that the three are a corporation for the purpose they are appointed, and the choice too was confirmed, and consequently not necessary that all the three should join; but if the act to be done by a select number of the twelve had been by a different charter, it would have been otherwise; it is not necessary that every corporate act should be under the seal of the corporation, nor did this need the corporation seal.
134:. A clause stated that three of the twelve would choose a chaplain for the Sandford church as well, another village within the Kirton parish, with the consent of the majority of Sandford residents. A late vacancy had been created. Two of the three chose a chaplain with the majority of residents' consent, but the third dissented. The question was whether the choice was valid.
159:
It cannot be disputed that wherever a certain number are incorporated, a major part of them may do any corporate act; so if all are summoned, and part appear, a major part of those that appear may do a corporate act, though nothing be mentioned in the charter of the major part. This is the common
399:
The Report cites the summary and facts as follows, "Case 169.— in the
Vacation of Trin. Term , 1741. S. G. cited 1 Ves. 419.—Where a certain number are incorporated, a major part of them may do any corporate act, though nothing be mentioned in the charter. King Edward the Sixth, by charter
107:
331:
190:
281:
243:
148:
428:
92:
case, which establishes this small but essential point of law: the default rule is that a majority of a corporate body can determine what it does.
295:
183:
152:
142:
145:
held that the chaplain was validly elected, for a corporate body can act by a majority vote at any duly summoned meeting of members.
443:
307:
176:
30:
257:
438:
365:
354:
433:
371:
111:, which raises the requirement to 75% of the shareholders if they are to give instructions to the board.
105:
which presupposed that a majority of shareholders can always take action to litigate, and the rule in
131:
127:
231:
343:
96:
71:
101:
319:
269:
219:
119:
89:
422:
85:
58:
168:
99:, which allows shareholders to remove directors through a simple majority,
123:
147:
172:
108:
Automatic Self-Cleansing Filter
Syndicate Co Ltd v Cuninghame
95:
Equivalent rules in contemporary company law are s 168
65:
53:
45:
37:
23:
333:Attorney General of Belize v Belize Telecom Ltd
157:
245:Automatic Self-Clean. Filter Ltd v Cuninghame
184:
8:
122:had incorporated twelve people by name in a
283:Hickman v Kent Sheep-Breeders’ Association
191:
177:
169:
29:
20:
383:
296:Southern Foundries (1926) Ltd v Shirlaw
126:to elect a chaplain for the church of
7:
14:
429:United Kingdom company case law
308:Harold Holdsworth Ltd v Caddies
258:Quin & Axtens Ltd v Salmon
1:
366:United States corporate law
460:
199:Company constitution cases
351:
341:
328:
316:
304:
292:
278:
266:
254:
240:
228:
216:
204:
70:
28:
16:1741 UK company law case
444:Court of Chancery cases
208:Attorney General v Davy
81:Attorney General v Davy
24:Attorney General v Davy
372:ICS v West Bromwich BS
162:
155:
151:
132:Boston, Lincolnshire
439:1741 in British law
232:Pender v Lushington
344:Companies Act 2006
156:
97:Companies Act 2006
61:, (1741) 2 Atk 212
415:(1775) 1 Cowp 248
361:
360:
153:Lord Hardwicke LC
143:Lord Hardwicke LC
77:
76:
72:Lord Hardwicke LC
41:Court of Chancery
451:
434:1741 in case law
401:
397:
391:
388:
334:
284:
246:
235:(1877) 6 Ch D 70
223:(1758) 97 ER 426
211:(1741) 2 Atk 212
193:
186:
179:
170:
102:Foss v Harbottle
33:
21:
459:
458:
454:
453:
452:
450:
449:
448:
419:
418:
409:
407:Further reading
404:
398:
394:
389:
385:
381:
362:
357:
347:
337:
332:
324:
320:Bushell v Faith
312:
300:
288:
282:
274:
270:Barron v Potter
262:
250:
244:
236:
224:
212:
200:
197:
167:
140:
130:, just outside
117:
17:
12:
11:
5:
457:
455:
447:
446:
441:
436:
431:
421:
420:
417:
416:
408:
405:
403:
402:
392:
382:
380:
377:
376:
375:
368:
359:
358:
355:UK company law
352:
349:
348:
342:
339:
338:
329:
326:
325:
317:
314:
313:
305:
302:
301:
293:
290:
289:
279:
276:
275:
267:
264:
263:
255:
252:
251:
241:
238:
237:
229:
226:
225:
220:R v Richardson
217:
214:
213:
205:
202:
201:
198:
196:
195:
188:
181:
173:
166:
163:
139:
136:
120:King Edward VI
116:
113:
90:UK company law
75:
74:
68:
67:
63:
62:
55:
51:
50:
49:1 January 1741
47:
43:
42:
39:
35:
34:
26:
25:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
456:
445:
442:
440:
437:
435:
432:
430:
427:
426:
424:
414:
411:
410:
406:
396:
393:
387:
384:
378:
374:
373:
369:
367:
364:
363:
356:
350:
345:
340:
336:
335:
327:
322:
321:
315:
310:
309:
303:
298:
297:
291:
286:
285:
277:
272:
271:
265:
260:
259:
253:
248:
247:
239:
234:
233:
227:
222:
221:
215:
210:
209:
203:
194:
189:
187:
182:
180:
175:
174:
171:
164:
161:
154:
150:
146:
144:
137:
135:
133:
129:
125:
121:
114:
112:
110:
109:
104:
103:
98:
93:
91:
87:
83:
82:
73:
69:
66:Case opinions
64:
60:
56:
52:
48:
44:
40:
36:
32:
27:
22:
19:
412:
395:
386:
370:
330:
318:
306:
294:
280:
268:
256:
242:
230:
218:
207:
206:
158:
141:
118:
106:
100:
94:
80:
79:
78:
18:
423:Categories
413:R v Varlo
311:1 WLR 352
86:26 ER 531
59:26 ER 531
54:Citations
287:1 Ch 881
273:1 Ch 895
165:See also
138:Judgment
323:AC 1099
249:2 Ch 34
124:charter
84:(1741)
57:(1741)
46:Decided
390:2 Ch 3
299:AC 701
261:AC 442
128:Kirton
379:Notes
115:Facts
88:is a
38:Court
353:see
346:s 33
425::
192:e
185:t
178:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
