(Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams.)

FORSYTH AN'l) ANOTHER V. I^R^LR. The Hon. J. MaeGregov appeared for the appellants (who am merely trustee), Mr P. R. Chapman for the respondent. His Honor gave judgment as follows : It was decided in 1859, in the case of StrnV v. Russell (Ik and E., 883), that where shareware sold according to the usage and practice of the Stock Exchange it lay upon the pirrhaser to register himself as a shareholder, an- 1 iiu the consent of the, directors to such recdiration when such consent was necessary. The priu ciples on which that decision was based are to some extent indicated in the judgments. hut they are made quite clear in the case of the nu -rf c «T, de ?,' , Asso^ ion V " 01arke (20 Q.8.D., 576), decided in 1838, where it was again held that the contract for the sale of sharer, on toe Stock Exchange did not import an under taking by the seller that the company would register the transferee. By the usage of the Stock Exchange the transfer is executed by the vendor and handed with the share certificates to the purchaser, who thereupon pays the price. Ihe execution of the transfer and payment of tie price are therefore prior to the time at which the exercise of the power of the directors to accept or refuse the transferee takes place. \\here a contract was made subject to such a usage the Court Considered that the inference was that it was the intention of the parties that all which the vendor uudertook to do.under the contracts was to be done prior to the payment of the price and.delivery of thi transfer, and that it was not a business-like or possible arrangement in such circumstances that a man should receive money oh the condition subsequent that if something afterwards hap pened over which neither of the parties had ftnV control the Money should be recoVereu back Ihe Court accordingly negatived the existence otsucii a condition subsequent. 