Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Mar-29-1946
..... of the court of session and argued in this house by the appellants upon the assumptiondictated by the form of the case statedthat the relevant terms of the contracts of insurance between the company and its members were such that, apart from section 31 of the finance act, 1933, no taxable profit could thereby arise to the company. into ..... that a mutual transaction with a non-member was a contradiction in terms. but this is a misconception. there is nothing to prevent a mutual insurance company entering into a contract of mutual insurance with a person who is not a member of the company. the argument will not fit the terms of the subsection. it is "those transactions," that is ..... from that status are to be ruled out. but, there the section stops. the ruling out of the status of membership and its consequences leaves unaffected the substance of the contract and in that there is inherent the right in respect of surplus contributions. there is thereforeon the assumption madeno sum finding its origin in payments under the ..... those terms in the articles of association which secure to him rights in respect of surplus contributionsas those articles stand at the date of his contract of insuranceenter into and form part of the contract of insurance. the member therefore as respects surplus contributions can rely not only on his rights as a member of the company under the articles .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Jul-26-1946
..... liverpool), ltd. (whom i will call the respondents), is not here relevant. it is not disputed that at the time when the respondents entered into a contract with the appellants under which the latter were to supply the former with the service of a crane and craneman, newall was the servant of the appellants. he ..... one of the two. a contract of this kind may of course determine the liability of the employers inter se, but it has only an indirect bearing upon the question which of ..... a transfer of their services from one master to another. nor is it legitimate to infer that a change of masters has been effected because a contract has been made between the two employers declaring whose servant the man employed shall be at a particular moment in the course of his general employment by ..... the employee's consent, expressed or implied. his position is determined by his contract. no doubt by finding out what his work is and how he does it and how he fulfils the task when put to carry out the requirements ..... as to the principles concerned. in determining this question it has to be borne in mind that the employee's position is an important consideration. a contract of service is made between master and man and an arrangement for the transfer of his services from one master to another can only be effected with .....Tag this Judgment!