Chang Yen-Mao v. Moreing
High Court of Justice Chancery Division
London Times, March 2, 1905, p. 3; 120 L. T. Jour. 313 (1905)

- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
After suppressing China’s Boxer Rebellion of 1899 to 1901, foreign powers imposed a humiliating settlement on the Chinese imperial government. As a result of that settlement, the Chinese Mining and Engineering Company of Tien Tsin (Chinese company) (plaintiff) agreed to sell its mines to Moreing (defendant), an English firm, in exchange for Moreing stock guaranteed to be worth at least $375,000. Title to the mines could not pass without the approval of Chang Yen-Mao (plaintiff), a high Chinese government official. Chang objected to the contract’s lack of any terms protecting the Chinese company’s right to the promised consideration. Moreing’s agent signed a memorandum containing the terms Chang demanded. The agent deceitfully assured Chang that the memorandum would be binding on Moreing. In reliance on that assurance, Chang approved the title transfer. In fact, the agent knew that the memorandum was not binding. Moreover, Moreing had already watered its stock, thereby reducing the value of the Chinese company’s stake in Moreing to approximately $106,000. Chang and the Chinese company sued in the chancery division of England’s high court to undo the fraudulent transaction.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Joyce, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.