Dayton & Cincinnati Railroad v. Hatch
Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati
¡'Special Term. — The plaintiff a body corporate, organized, ppd^r the laws of the State of Ohio, brings its action, on January 20, a. d., 1855, to recover, in money, the amount of seven jinpáid ten per cent, instalments, assessed upon certain stocks, subscribed in the name of George Hatch, by two certain contractsof subscription, executed by Hatch — the one on the 10th, and the other on the 12th of April, 1852, in words and figures following, to wit: “We do hereby subscribe…
Read the full summary
¡'Special Term. — The plaintiff a body corporate, organized, ppd^r the laws of the State of Ohio, brings its action, on January 20, a. d., 1855, to recover, in money, the amount of seven jinpáid ten per cent, instalments, assessed upon certain stocks, subscribed in the name of George Hatch, by two certain contractsof subscription, executed by Hatch — the one on the 10th, and the other on the 12th of April, 1852, in words and figures following, to wit: “We do hereby subscribe to the capital stock of the Dayton & Cincinnati Railroad Company, the number of shares annexed to our names…
1Opinion of the CourtQ-holson, J.
There are two principal questions which arise in this ease, and which have been very ably and elaborately argued. Both these questions involve the validity of subscriptions of stock, made by George Hatch, to the Dayton and Cincinnati Railroad Company. One of them depends on the power of that Company to receive a subscription of stock in real estate, or to exchange or dispose of a portion of its stock for real estate; and the other, on the happening, or the* performance of a condition made precedent to the taking effect of one of the subscriptions.
With a view of deciding upon the power of the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Connecticut & Passumpsic Rivers Rail Road v. BaileySupreme Court of Vermont · 1852
- Danbury & Norwalk Railroad v. WilsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1852
- Smith v. BangsIllinois Supreme Court · 1854
3Cited by1 opinion
- Shiffer v. AkenbrookIndiana Court of Appeals · 1921