Grayble v. York & Gettysburg Turnpike Road Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
By the bill of exceptions returned with this writ of error, by the Court of Common Pleas of Jldams county, it appeared, that this was an action, brought by the York and Gettysburg Turnpike Hoad Company, plaintiffs below, against Samuel Gray ble the deffendant below, to recover the sum of 300 dollars, the amount of his subscription to the York and Gettysburg Turnpike Road.
Read the full summary
By the bill of exceptions returned with this writ of error, by the Court of Common Pleas of Jldams county, it appeared, that this was an action, brought by the York and Gettysburg Turnpike Hoad Company, plaintiffs below, against Samuel Gray ble the deffendant below, to recover the sum of 300 dollars, the amount of his subscription to the York and Gettysburg Turnpike Road. The statement filed alleged, that the defendant on the 1st May, 1817, had signed three promissory notes, in pursuance of the act of assembly of the 11th March, 1815, each promising to pay the plaintiffs the sum of 100…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Duncan, J.
There was an objection, which if it'is support ed, cuts up this action by the roots. It is. that the 5 dollars required by the act of incorporation to be paid on each share, not being paid at the -fime of subscription, vitiates the subscription in to-to, and for this the Hibernia Turnpike Company v. Henderson, decided by this court, is relied on. But that case is distinguishable from the present in this most important feature, that here the plaintiff in error was one of the commissioners, who had authority to receive the 5 dollars when he…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- President of the Highland Turnpike v. M'KeanNew York Supreme Court · 1814
- Dickinson v. PurvisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1822
3Cited by1 opinion
- Campbell v. KentSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1831