Kenderdine Hydro-Carbon Fuel Co. v. Plumb
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 20, Jan. T., 1897, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1894, No. 375, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit for breach of contract.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 20, Jan. T., 1897, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1894, No. 375, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit for breach of contract. Before Biddle, J. At the trial it appeared that the contract sued upon was as follows: Memorandum of agreement, made this 6th day of July, A. D. 1892, by and between the Kenderdine Hydro-Carbon Fuel Company, a corporation created by and existing under the laws of the state of West Virginia, of the first part, and Fayette R. Plumb, of the city of Philadelphia, of the other part. Whereas, the party of the first part is the…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Williams,
The plaintiff company, prior to the making of the contract now sued on, had an authorized capital of $50,000, divided into five hundred shares of $100 each. This was owned by three men, Kenderdine, Kitson and Weidershime. The first contributed the patent for the burners which constituted the property of the company. The second contributed services of some sort. The third contributed more services. Neither paid a farthing in money, but together they held the entire stock as fully paid, and subject to no further assessment. The only asset of any value belonging to…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Childs v. City of ColumbiaSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1911
- Stonega Coal & Coke Co. v. Louisville & Nashville RailroadSupreme Court of Virginia · 1906
- Singer Manufacturing Co. v. ChristianSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
- Commonwealth Trust Co. v. Hachmeister Lind Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
- Hess v. Iowa Light, Heat & Power Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1928
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.