Patent error on record justified review of a duplicate-shares direction, and the contempt petition then fell away.

An order directing the receiver to obtain duplicate shares was reviewed because it proceeded on a mistaken premise that the shares were lost. Although the shares had earlier been sold and legal title remained in the judgment-debtor's name due to non-registration, beneficial interest had passed to the purchaser and the company could treat the registered holder as owner in its records. The court held that this constituted a patent error apparent on the record, so the direction for duplicate shares was deleted. Once that direction was removed, the contempt petition had no surviving and was dismissed with costs.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order directing the receiver to take steps to obtain duplicate shares from the company required review on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record, and whether the consequential contempt petition could survive.

Analysis: The shares standing in the judgment-debtor's name had earlier been sold, though the transfer was not registered by the company. On those facts, the legal title continued in the judgment-debtor's name, but the beneficial interest had passed to the purchaser, and the company was entitled to treat the registered holder as owner in its records. Since the earlier direction proceeded on the incorrect premise that the shares were lost, the court found a patent error apparent on the record warranting review of that part of the order. Once the direction for obtaining duplicate shares was removed, the basis for the contempt petition disappeared.

Conclusion: The review was allowed, the direction to obtain duplicate shares was deleted, and the contempt petition was dismissed with costs.

---