South Bay Meadow Dam Co. v. Gray
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Assumpsit, upon an instrument signed by the defendant, of the following tenor: — “ We, the subscribers, severally promise the South Bay Meadow Dam Company, the sum of twenty-five dollars, for every share of stock set against our respective names, in such manner and proportions and at such times, as the directors thereof shall order, pursuant to an act entitled an act to incorporate the South Bay Meadow Dam Company, and the by-laws of said company.”
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, upon an instrument signed by the defendant, of the following tenor: — “ We, the subscribers, severally promise the South Bay Meadow Dam Company, the sum of twenty-five dollars, for every share of stock set against our respective names, in such manner and proportions and at such times, as the directors thereof shall order, pursuant to an act entitled an act to incorporate the South Bay Meadow Dam Company, and the by-laws of said company.” Against the name of defendant was written one share. The case came before the Court upon an agreed statement of facts. The act incorporating the…
1Opinion of the CourtShepley, C. J.
— This action has be.en commenced to recover the amount of two assessments made upon one share of the capital stock of a company.
*549The case is presented upon an agreed statement. It does not appear, that there are any pleadings in the case. If there have been, the parties may agree to present matters pleadable only in abatement, as objections to the plaintiff’s right to recover. The rule is not therefore applicable, that the existence of the corporation is admitted by a plea to the merits.
Several objections to a recovery have been made. They are in substance : —
1. That there is no satisfactory…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- People v. RunkelNew York Supreme Court · 1812
- McCall v. Byram Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1827
- Selma & Tennessee Rail Road v. TiptonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1843
- John v. Farmers & Mechanics' BankIndiana Supreme Court · 1830
- New Bedford & Bridgewater Turnpike Corp. v. AdamsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1811
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- City of Detroit v. Detroit & Howell Plank Road Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1880
- McGowan v. McDonaldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Attorney General ex rel. Dusenbury v. LookerMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
- Barnes v. ArnoldNew York Supreme Court · 1898
- Fairview R. R. v. SpillmanOregon Supreme Court · 1893
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.