This book contains 53 nineteenth century American legal cases in which courts discussed accounting issues. Some are well known: Wood v. Drummer (1824) was the foundation for the idea that capital could not be returned to shareholders and it was this restriction which made it necessary to distinguish between income and capital. The famous case of 1849, Burnes v Pennell is often cited as the source of the rule that dividends cannot be paid except from profits. However, many of the cases covered in this book are not well-known. It is often assumed that few American legal cases on accounting matters were decided in the nineteenth century. However, many of the 53 cases included here preceded the earliest British legal cases that discussed accounting issues and they are interesting for several reasons. They show that government regulation of accounting pre-dated the modern regulatory ear. They also illustration that sometimes private contracts specified a particular accounting treatment and that accounting, therefore, served to define private rights. They also illustrate that American courts discussed accrual accounting problems as early as 1837 and that a cash concept of profits was not the norm.

This book contains edited versions of thirty British legal cases involving accounting issues decided from 1849-1888. These cases are a valuable source of information about the development of accounting principles and practices in nineteenth-century Great Britain. The thirty cases show that the court decisions involved a rich variety of accounting issues. In some cases courts upset private contractual stipulations regarding accounting and dividend matters. In others, management was held to have used incorrect principles in computing profits. Whether or not a contract or management decision was upset, the courts often discussed at some length the principles that management should apply in the preparation of balance sheets or income statements. It is therefore obvious that in resolving issues of equity among participants in British companies, the courts were applying normative accounting principles.

This book contains 53 nineteenth century American legal cases in which courts discussed accounting issues. Some are well known: Wood v. Drummer (1824) was the foundation for the idea that capital could not be returned to shareholders and it was this restriction which made it necessary to distinguish between income and capital. The famous case of 1849, Burnes v Pennell is often cited as the source of the rule that dividends cannot be paid except from profits. However, many of the cases covered in this book are not well-known. It is often assumed that few American legal cases on accounting matters were decided in the nineteenth century. However, many of the 53 cases included here preceded the earliest British legal cases that discussed accounting issues and they are interesting for several reasons. They show that government regulation of accounting pre-dated the modern regulatory ear. They also illustration that sometimes private contracts specified a particular accounting treatment and that accounting, therefore, served to define private rights. They also illustrate that American courts discussed accrual accounting problems as early as 1837 and that a cash concept of profits was not the norm.

This book contains edited versions of thirty British legal cases involving accounting issues decided from 1849-1888. These cases are a valuable source of information about the development of accounting principles and practices in nineteenth-century Great Britain. The thirty cases show that the court decisions involved a rich variety of accounting issues. In some cases courts upset private contractual stipulations regarding accounting and dividend matters. In others, management was held to have used incorrect principles in computing profits. Whether or not a contract or management decision was upset, the courts often discussed at some length the principles that management should apply in the preparation of balance sheets or income statements. It is therefore obvious that in resolving issues of equity among participants in British companies, the courts were applying normative accounting principles.