Somerset & Kennebec Railroad v. Cushing
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Report by Rice, J. These actions were Assumpsit, tp recover of the defendants, respectively, their subscriptions to the stock of the plaintiff corporation. Weston subscribed for two shares, and Cushing for one share. The first assessment of ten dollars on each share was paid by Cushing, but not by Weston. Subsequent assessments were made thereon which were not paid; and the treasurer thereupon advertised and sold the shares according to the provisions of the by-laws.
Read the full summary
Report by Rice, J. These actions were Assumpsit, tp recover of the defendants, respectively, their subscriptions to the stock of the plaintiff corporation. Weston subscribed for two shares, and Cushing for one share. The first assessment of ten dollars on each share was paid by Cushing, but not by Weston. Subsequent assessments were made thereon which were not paid; and the treasurer thereupon advertised and sold the shares according to the provisions of the by-laws. The proceeds of the sales not amounting to the sum of the assessments, these suits wore to recover the balance. By the charter,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was drawn up by
Tenney, C. J.
The action against Cushing is brought to recover nine assessments of $10 each, upon one share of the capital stock in said company, he having paid the first assessment and no other. The defendant in the other action has omitted to pay either of the ten assessments made upon each of his two shares of the capital stock, and the aggregate amount of those assessments are sought to be recovered.
The plaintiffs rely upon a paper, dated February, 1853, signed by the dfefendants, and others, in which the subscribers agree to take the number of…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Burke v. MeadIndiana Supreme Court · 1902
- Peck v. ElliottCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1897
- International Fair & Exposition Ass'n v. WalkerMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
- Bray v. . FarwellNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Schloss & Kahn v. Montgomery Trade Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1888