No, Mike, it's direct from the original BT file in the National Archives at Kew, where the special resolution is recorded.
My notes are about 20 years old, which is probably before anything of this ilk was on line.
Perhaps as the National Archive accepted all these files after the businesses were defunct, in such cases as this the last names in use became their identifiers at their new home.
I don't know where it is now, but years ago there was an old hand-written register at Companies House by which you could get the BT file number if you had the correct name of the company. It might be that the register has at a minimum the original "(1916)" name against the correct number - maybe a second entry or a correction for the new name.
Regards,
Andy
On Saturday, 12 May 2018, 13:37:06 EEST, margaret and michael shaw <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Gents,
thanks for the explanations. I clearly have not found the right sites to
search, though I am slightly puzzled as to why the NA have no entry for the
company with (1916) in its name, and I would have supposed that the change
would have been noted in the London Gazette. I obviously need to do more
research on company names, is the information on the date of the company's
change of names from an online source?
Mike Shaw
On 11 May 2018 at 17:01, Roy Fellows <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Company law has been subject to change over time. I have come across
> instances of two different companies (19th Cent) with the same name, a
> later company having the same name as an earlier one. This would not be
> allowed today as companies remain on the register even after they are
> dissolved. The company name is as it appears on the company register and
> reproduced on the Certificate of Incorporation.
> My question is are you sure that it is one and the same company?
> It occurs that the parenthesised year could have been used to distinguish
> one from the other. Again, this would not be allowed today, Companies House
> would reject the application. Things are a lot tighter nowadays.
>
> The name of the company is everything that appears before the "Ltd" being
> an abbreviation for "Limited"
>
> Apart from this, sorry cannot be of any more help.
>
> Regards
>
> Roy
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mining-history [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> margaret and michael shaw
> Sent: 11 May 2018 15:14
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: company names
>
> rather a tenuous link to mining history, but ... When reference was made to
> the formation of Shropshire Mines Limited in 1917 the London Gazette
> referred to it as Shropshire Mines (1916) Limited, the National Archives
> BT31 file 23508/145661 refers to the company just as Shropshire Mines
> Limited, what is the standing of the (1916)? I am sure that I have come
> across concerns where an absence of dates or the presence of dates in
> brackets have distinguished successor companies, presumably in these cases
> the date would be part of the company's legal name. In the lack of an
> idiot's guide to company law can anyone help please.
> Mike Shaw
>
> If you need to leave the list, send the following message to
> [log in to unmask] -
>
> leave mining-history
> ---------
>
> If you need to leave the list, send the following message to
> [log in to unmask] -
>
> leave mining-history
> ---------
>
If you need to leave the list, send the following message to [log in to unmask] -
leave mining-history
---------
If you need to leave the list, send the following message to [log in to unmask] -
leave mining-history
---------
|