Now, under these circumstances, various questions were raised before me. First of all, it was said that the Plaintiff company had no power to borrow at all; and to this it was answered that the company was a trading company, and that a power of borrowing was a necessary incident to the constitution of such a company. In my opinion, the company is a trading company. If there was nothing else, the fact that the objects of the company include the discounting of approved commercial bills, and the fact that the company did carry on that species of business, prove it to be such. The question then is, whether a trading company has power to borrow, there being no express authority for the purpose to be found either in the memorandum or articles of association.
Now, upon this there is authority. In the first place, in the case of Australian Auxiliary Steam Clipper Company v. Mounsey (6), the circumstances were very similar to the present. There the company was incorpora…