Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

Bank of China, Japan and the Straits Ltd v. Sullivan, 1897

[enforcement of foreign judgments]


 

Bank of China, Japan and the Straits Ltd v. Sullivan

Supreme Court for China and Japan
Hannen CJ, 29 July 1897
Source: North China Herald, 30 July,1897


 

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S SUPREME COURT.

Shanghai, 29th July.

Before Sir Nicholas J. Hannen, Chief Justice.

BANK OF CHINA, JAPAN AND THE STRAITS, LTD., v. J.  A. SULLIVAN.

   This was an action under circumstances revealed in the following petition. Mr. D. McNeill (Messrs. Dowdall and Hanson) appeared for the plaintiffs, and the defendant appeared in person.

   [1.] The plaintiffs are a British Company incorporated under the English Companies Acts 1862 to 1886.

   [2.] The defendant is a British subject resident at Shanghai.

   [3.] Previously to the time hereinafter mentioned the plaintiffs commenced an action against the defendant in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in England which said action was distinguished in the cause book of the said Court as 1896 O No, 1970, the plaintiffs' claim being for money in which the defendant as a member of the plaintiffs' Company was indebted to the plaintiffs for calls made by the Directors of the plaintiffs' Company and by the Liquidator in the winding up thereof upon 400 ordinary shares in the Company held by the defendant.

   [4.] Afterwards, namely, on the 21st day of October, 1896, the plaintiffs by judgment of the said Court recovered against the defendant in the said action, the sum of £3,652 8. 2d. together with the sum of £8. 15s. 8d, for their costs of action making together the sum of £3,661.4.10.

The plaintiffs therefore pray:

   [1.] That the defendant may be ordered forthwith to pay to the plaintiffs the sum of £3,661 4. 10d. together with interest thereon at the rate of 5 per vent per annum from the 21st day of October,1896.

   [2.] That the defendant may be ordered to pay the costs of this suit.

   [3.] That the plaintiffs may have such further or other relief as the nature of the case may require.

   Mr. McNeil, after explaining that the action was to enforce the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, put in a copy of the judgment, and called Mr. Sullivan.

   Mr. J. A. Sullivan, having been sworn,  admitted the correctness of the statements contained in the petition.

   Mr. McNeill - On that evidence, my Lord, I ask for judgment in favour of the Bank of China, Japan and the Straits for the amount claimed.

   His Lordship gave judgment for the plaintiffs.

   Mr. McNeill - Judgment having been given in favour of the Bank, I am instructed by the defendant Sullivan to ask your Lordship under Order 16, Rule 15 to enter judgment against Mr. N. E. Cornish as the third party cited in this action. You have the action filed on 25th February of the present year.

   His Lordship - Must you not prove the service of the notice?

   Mr. McNeill - After that notice was served we received from Messrs. Johnson, Stokes and Master a letter in which it was stated that "Our client (Mr. Cornish) does not dispute the claim of Mr. Sullivan." (Letter read.)

   Under that I think it would be proved to your Lordship there was service of notice. I therefore ask that that be regarded as Mr. Sullivan's right to indemnity in respect of any sum which he may be called upon to pay under the judgment which has just been given in favour of the Bank. I propose to make a subsequent application in this case, that the defendant Sullivan may be indemnified, and I am now asking you to issue judgment in favour of defendant against the third party. I now put in the minute of judgment.

   His Lordship gave judgment as asked for.

 

Source: North China Herald, 20 October,1897

LAW REPORTS.

H.B.M.'S SUPREME COURT.

Shanghai, 18th October.

Before R. W. Mansfield, Esq., Assistant Judge.

BANK OF CHINA, JAPAN, AND THE STRAITS (IN LIQUIDATION) v. J. A. SULLIVAN (N. E. CORNISH.)

   Mr. D. McNeill (Messrs. Dowdall and Hanson) appeared for Mr. Sullivan.

   Mr. McNeill applied for adjournment sine die, as an offer had been made by Mr. N. E. Cornish, the debtor, which was likely to lead to a settlement of the case.

   His Honour granted the application.

Published by Centre for Comparative Law, History and Governance at Macquarie Law School