Nippenose Manufacturing Co. v. Stadon
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
March 27th 1871. Before Thompson, C. J., Read, Ag-new and Sharswood, JJ. Williams, J., at Nisi Prius. Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming county: No. 131, to January Term 1870. ' ' The Nippenose Manufacturing Company, on the 7th of January 1868, commenced an action of assumpsit against Abram Stadon to recover the subscription price of 80 shares of the capital stock of the plaintiffs, at $50 per share.
Read the full summary
March 27th 1871. Before Thompson, C. J., Read, Ag-new and Sharswood, JJ. Williams, J., at Nisi Prius. Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming county: No. 131, to January Term 1870. ' ' The Nippenose Manufacturing Company, on the 7th of January 1868, commenced an action of assumpsit against Abram Stadon to recover the subscription price of 80 shares of the capital stock of the plaintiffs, at $50 per share. The subscription which the defendant signed was:— “We, whose names are hereto subscribed, do promise to pay to the president and directors of the Nippenose Manufacturing Company, the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered,
by Shar.swood, J.
It was decided in McConahy v. The Centre Turnpike, 1 Penna. Rep. 426, that a promise made by a commissioner appointed to receive subscriptions for the stock of a proposed corporation to a person offering to subscribe that he might pay in work was binding on the corporation, at least so far as to prevent it from recovering from the subscriber contrary to the terms of the agreement. It appears to have been merely considered as a question whether parol evidence could be received of what had occurred at the time to vary the terms of the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Beal & Simons v. Adams Express Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
- Thompson, Exrx. v. BarrowSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Jeannette Bottle Works v. SchallSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1900