Battershall v. Davis
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action for the foreclosure of a mortgage, and was tried at the circuit, before Leonard, justice, without a jury; and the following facts were found by him : The defendant Alexander Davis subscribed for a large number of shares of stock in the Hydeville Marble Company, and being indebted to the said company thereon, in the sum of $1675, by arrangement with the said company, executed his bond for that sum, secured by a mortgage from himself and wife, to Peter W.…
Read the full summary
THIS was an action for the foreclosure of a mortgage, and was tried at the circuit, before Leonard, justice, without a jury; and the following facts were found by him : The defendant Alexander Davis subscribed for a large number of shares of stock in the Hydeville Marble Company, and being indebted to the said company thereon, in the sum of $1675, by arrangement with the said company, executed his bond for that sum, secured by a mortgage from himself and wife, to Peter W. Livingston, then a trustee of the said company, dated March 28, 1857, on the premises described in the complaint, which…
1Opinion of the CourtLeonard, J.
There are two ‘questions only, in this case, that are entitled to be noticed.
First. Whether a bond and mortgage given to secure the payment of a sum due to a manufacturing company, on a subscription for shares, can be collected after the subscriber has demanded scrip for his shares, and neglect or refusal by the company to issue it.
The subscription for shares is a legal obligation which can be enforced by action, and by forfeiture for non-payment. It is therefore a good consideration for giving the security. If the bond and mortgage were to be declared void, the subscriber would remain liable…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Bittinger v. BellIndiana Supreme Court · 1879
- Threadgill v. ColcordSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1906
- Willamette Freighting Co. v. StannusOregon Supreme Court · 1872
- Pitts v. New Mammoth Gold Mining Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1901