Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > "Different and better?" Scottish joint-stock co...

Associated organisational unit

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

"Different and better?" Scottish joint-stock companies and the law, c. 1720-1845

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

"Different and better?" Scottish joint-stock companies and the law, c. 1720-1845. / Freeman, Mark; Pearson, Robin; Taylor, James.

In: English Historical Review, Vol. 122, No. 495, 02.2007, p. 61-81.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

Freeman, M, Pearson, R & Taylor, J 2007, '"Different and better?" Scottish joint-stock companies and the law, c. 1720-1845', English Historical Review, vol. 122, no. 495, pp. 61-81. https://doi.org/10.1093/ehr/cel373

APA

Vancouver

Author

Freeman, Mark ; Pearson, Robin ; Taylor, James. / "Different and better?" Scottish joint-stock companies and the law, c. 1720-1845. In: English Historical Review. 2007 ; Vol. 122, No. 495. pp. 61-81.

Bibtex

@article{398805926c224dbf89511895dc82fc34,
title = "{"}Different and better?{"} Scottish joint-stock companies and the law, c. 1720-1845",
abstract = "This paper examines the legal status of joint-stock companies in Scotland in the period between the `Bubble Act' of 1720 and the reforms of company law in Britain in the mid-1840s. Historians have generally contended that Scots company law was `different and better' than English law. In this paper, however, we question the assumption that the legal personality of the unincorporated company in Scotland gave it a significant advantage vis-{\`a}-vis its English counterparts. Using the examples of the National and Commercial Banks of Scotland, and the Shotts Iron Company, we argue that, while unincorporated companies were never in danger of being ruled illegal in Scotland, their status presented them with a number of difficulties in their day-to-day activities. This legal framework reflected the reluctance both north and south of the border to promote joint-stock enterprise at the expense of the private partnership long into the nineteenth century.",
author = "Mark Freeman and Robin Pearson and James Taylor",
year = "2007",
month = feb,
doi = "10.1093/ehr/cel373",
language = "English",
volume = "122",
pages = "61--81",
journal = "English Historical Review",
issn = "0013-8266",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "495",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - "Different and better?" Scottish joint-stock companies and the law, c. 1720-1845

AU - Freeman, Mark

AU - Pearson, Robin

AU - Taylor, James

PY - 2007/2

Y1 - 2007/2

N2 - This paper examines the legal status of joint-stock companies in Scotland in the period between the `Bubble Act' of 1720 and the reforms of company law in Britain in the mid-1840s. Historians have generally contended that Scots company law was `different and better' than English law. In this paper, however, we question the assumption that the legal personality of the unincorporated company in Scotland gave it a significant advantage vis-à-vis its English counterparts. Using the examples of the National and Commercial Banks of Scotland, and the Shotts Iron Company, we argue that, while unincorporated companies were never in danger of being ruled illegal in Scotland, their status presented them with a number of difficulties in their day-to-day activities. This legal framework reflected the reluctance both north and south of the border to promote joint-stock enterprise at the expense of the private partnership long into the nineteenth century.

AB - This paper examines the legal status of joint-stock companies in Scotland in the period between the `Bubble Act' of 1720 and the reforms of company law in Britain in the mid-1840s. Historians have generally contended that Scots company law was `different and better' than English law. In this paper, however, we question the assumption that the legal personality of the unincorporated company in Scotland gave it a significant advantage vis-à-vis its English counterparts. Using the examples of the National and Commercial Banks of Scotland, and the Shotts Iron Company, we argue that, while unincorporated companies were never in danger of being ruled illegal in Scotland, their status presented them with a number of difficulties in their day-to-day activities. This legal framework reflected the reluctance both north and south of the border to promote joint-stock enterprise at the expense of the private partnership long into the nineteenth century.

U2 - 10.1093/ehr/cel373

DO - 10.1093/ehr/cel373

M3 - Journal article

VL - 122

SP - 61

EP - 81

JO - English Historical Review

JF - English Historical Review

SN - 0013-8266

IS - 495

ER -