BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Creditors of The Lochfine Gunpowder Co. (Ltd), Petitioners [1867] ScotLR 5_398 (20 March 1867) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1867/05SLR0398.html Cite as: [1867] ScotLR 5_398, [1867] SLR 5_398 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 398↓
In this petition for winding-up, subject to supervision of the Court, certain creditors appeared and craved removal of the liquidators already appointed, but the Court held that no sufficient ground of removal had been alleged.
This petition was presented by creditors of the Lochfine Gunpowder Company (Limited), At a meeting on 22d January last, it had been unanimously resolved that the business of the company should bo voluntarily wound-up. At a subsequent meeting this resolution was confirmed, and Mr George Shand, writer, Denny, and Mr James Weir, commercial traveller, Airdrie, were appointed liquidators. These gentlemen proceeded to realise the funds, with a view to distribution. Various actions and diligence, however, were threatened against the company, and accordingly this petition was presented, under section 147 of the Companies Act 1862, craving the Court to make an order directing that the voluntary winding-up of the company shall continue, but subject to the supervision of the Court, and with such liberty for creditors, contributories, and others to apply to the Court as the the Court thinks just. Answers were lodged for Martin, Turner, and Co., creditors of the company, objecting to the company being wound up under the present liquidators, and craving the Court to order a meeting of the creditors, to ascertain their views as to the appointment of liquidators by whom the winding-up might be carried on. Similar answers were lodged by two other creditors. Counsel were heard on the petition and answers.
Balfour for petitioner.
A Moncrieff and D. Marshall for respondents.
At advising—
Lord President—I don't think the respondents have made out a case either for removing the liquidators or for appointing additional liquidators. The power of the Court to remove liquidators is under the 141st section of the Act; but it contemplates it being done only “on due cause shown.” No sufficient cause has here been shown forcre-moving the gentlemen who were appointed unanimously to the office of liquidators; and as to the appointment of additional liquidators, that is an unnecessary expense to incur in so small a concern. It does not appear that there is so much complication in the winding-up of this company that greater skill must be possessed by the liquidators than may be presumed’ to be possessed by these gentlemen, one of whom held the position of traveller to the company while it carried on business, and the other of whom is a writer and bank agent. As a matter of judicial discretion, I am against interfering.
Solicitors: Agents for petitioner— Maclachlan, Ivory, & Rodger, W.S.
Agents for respondents— Cheyne & Stuart, W.S., A. R. Morison, S.S.C., and W. G. Roy, S.S.C.
