Arkadelphia Cotton Mills v. Trimble
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Miller Circuit Court. C. E. Mitcijel, Judge. It is true the general rule is that it is an implied contract that the subscription is binding only after the full capital stock has been subscribed. 6 Pick., 23 ; Cook on Liability ■of Stockholders, sec. 176; Morawetz on Pr.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Miller Circuit Court. C. E. Mitcijel, Judge. It is true the general rule is that it is an implied contract that the subscription is binding only after the full capital stock has been subscribed. 6 Pick., 23 ; Cook on Liability ■of Stockholders, sec. 176; Morawetz on Pr. Corp., sec. 137. But the statute does not require the whole capital stock to be subscribed, and where a charter by its terms shows an intention to begin business after a certain sum is subscribed, then the subscription is binding. 113 Mass., 79; 13 Met. (Mass)., 311; 12 Gray, 244; 34 Me., 360; 40 Me., 44; 2 Met.…
1Opinion of the CourtBattle, J.
The Arkadelphia Cotton Mills is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of this State. Sometime in January, 1888, M. H. Trimble subscribed the articles of association of the corporation, and an agreement to take and pay for twenty shares of its capital stock, amounting in the aggregate to $500. Afterwards four assessments of 25 per cent, each on all the shares taken in the capital stock were made by the board of directors. Trimble was duly notified of the assessments upon his share, but refused to pay them because the full amount of the capital stock, as fixed by the articles of…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Boston, Barre & Gardner Railroad v. WellingtonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873
- Boston & Albany Railroad v. PearsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880
- Galveston Hotel Co. v. BoltonTexas Supreme Court · 1877
3Cited by2 opinions
- Nowlin v. Memphis Packing Corp.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1923
- Tyler v. Receivers of the Cambridge Furniture Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1931