Eastburn v. Grove
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 112, Oct. T., 1917, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 4, Philadelphia Co., Sept. T., 1916, No. 237, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Walter R. Eastburn v. Daniel F. Grove and Budd W. Rulon. Assumpsit to recover back money paid under a stock subscription.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 112, Oct. T., 1917, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 4, Philadelphia Co., Sept. T., 1916, No. 237, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Walter R. Eastburn v. Daniel F. Grove and Budd W. Rulon. Assumpsit to recover back money paid under a stock subscription. At the trial it appeared that the plaintiff signed a stock subscription agreement incident to the organization of a proposed bank to be known as the “Valley Forge Bank.” The terms of the agreement are quoted in the opinion of the Superior Court. Plaintiff paid $675 on…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Tkexler, J.,
The agreement we are asked to construe reads in part as follows: “To the Organization Board for the Proposed Banking Institution; I subscribe for fifteen shares of the capital stock in a financial institution to be organized by you according to law and agree to pay for’same by monthly payments as called for by your organization board or the directors......Each share sold shall be is*365sued at $55, of wliich par value is $50, and $5 a subscribed premium, is for undivided profits, parts of Avhich you may use for an organization fund to purchase boohs, checks and supplies and…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hudson v. WestSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
- Lieb v. PainterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1910