Misfeasance claims require specific proof of wrongful acts, not just balance sheet entries and unexplained accounting items.

Section 543(1) misfeasance requires specific pleadings and proof of distinct wrongful acts; liability cannot rest merely on balance sheet entries. The alleged non-recovery from sundry debtors was explained by substantial subsequent recovery and satisfactory reasons for the balance. Cash and bank balances had been adjusted by bankers against outstanding liabilities, which was beyond the respondents' direct control. The loans and advances were shown to be statutory deposits or amounts otherwise recoverable in law, and one item related to a company already in liquidation. No material established wrongful conduct, so recovery against the respondents was not warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents were liable for misfeasance under Section 543(1) and answerable for recovery of the amounts shown in the company balance sheet.

Analysis: An application under Section 543(1) requires specific pleadings and proof of distinct acts of misfeasance. The claim here was based largely on entries in the balance sheet. The evidence showed that, in respect of sundry debtors, substantial recovery had been made between the two balance sheets and the remaining non-recovery was satisfactorily explained. As to cash and bank balances, the amounts had been adjusted by bankers against outstanding liabilities, which was beyond the direct control of the respondents. The loans and advances were shown to be statutory deposits or amounts otherwise recoverable in accordance with law, and one item related to a company already in liquidation. No material was produced to establish wrongful conduct by the respondents.

Conclusion: The allegation of misfeasance was not proved and no recovery could be ordered against the respondents.

---