Tesco v Constain - Thomson Reuters

[1912] 2 Ch. 134 Page 61909 WL 15821 (Ch D)(Cite as: [1912] 2 Ch. 134)I think the true meaning of this resolution is that the company has proposedand the debenture stock holders have accepted the proposal that the *141debenture stock, which, according to the existing state of things, ought to bepaid off on October 1, 1907, is to be replaced by debenture stock in respect ofwhich there is to be no such liability on the part of the company.Accordingly I hold that there was, after the passing of this resolution, nosubsisting right in the plaintiffs to demand payment of their principal moneyseither by reason of the resolution being ultra vires or by reason of theresolution being so framed as to keep alive their absolute right to payment onthe due date.Under these circumstances I must dismiss the action, and I must dismiss it withcosts, but in so doing it must not be understood that I have expressed anyopinion as to whether the supplemental deed which was in fact executed on October3, 1904, gives effect to the contract which I have found to be embodied in theresolution of September 6.RepresentationSolicitors: Whitfield, Dean & Whitfield, for Humphreys, Hirst & Whitley, Halifax;Walker & Rowe, for Frederick Walker & Son, Halifax.(R. M.)(c) Incorporated Council of Law Reporting For England & WalesEND OF DOCUMENTCopr. © West 2004 No Claim to Orig. Govt. Works