Estate of Mustin
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 403, Jan; T., 1897, by Ida C. Lloyd, from decree of O. C. Phila. Co., Jan. T., 1893, No. 180, overruling exceptions to adjudication. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 403, Jan; T., 1897, by Ida C. Lloyd, from decree of O. C. Phila. Co., Jan. T., 1893, No. 180, overruling exceptions to adjudication. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. On exceptions to the adjudication made by Ashman, J., the following opinion was filed by Penrose, J.: It is and must be conceded that the attempt to create a joint stock company failed for want of compliance with the requirements of the act of assembly, and that the parties, not having acquired the immunities conferred by the act, when they undertook, notwithstanding, to carry on the contemplated…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Dean,
About the year 1887, John Mustin, the testator, became a special partner with his son, Thomas J. Mustin, in the manufacture and sale of knit goods in Philadelphia, and contributed as his share of the capital, $50,000. In 1888, they, with Robert Patterson, an employee, who contributed only a small sum of money that he might make up three in number, formed a joint stock company in the same business under the act of June 2, 1874, taking the name of “ The Thomas J. Mustin Knitting Company, Limited,” to continue for five years. The capital was $70,721, of which John…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Bentley's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
- Donnelly's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
- Reel's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Sulzer's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936