Stover v. Flack
New York Supreme Court
THIS action it prosecuted by the plaintiffs, as surviving administrators of Peter Stover, deceased, to recover ónehalf of a subscription of $1000, made by the said Peter Stover to the capital stock of the Diamond Mills Manufacturing Company, in the month of May or June, 1852, and the further sum of $500, paid by the plaintiffs to discharge the debts of said company, under the statute making the stockholders liable for the debts of said company, on the 28th of February, 1859.…
Read the full summary
THIS action it prosecuted by the plaintiffs, as surviving administrators of Peter Stover, deceased, to recover ónehalf of a subscription of $1000, made by the said Peter Stover to the capital stock of the Diamond Mills Manufacturing Company, in the month of May or June, 1852, and the further sum of $500, paid by the plaintiffs to discharge the debts of said company, under the statute making the stockholders liable for the debts of said company, on the 28th of February, 1859. The plaintiffs claim that said subscription was made for the joint benefit of the said Peter Stover and the defendant,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Miller, J.
Several important questions were raised by the defendant’s counsel upon the argument of this cause, which I will proceed to consider.
I. It is urged that the agreement between the defendant and the intestate was not a legal and valid contract by which the defendant became the owner of one-half of the stock subscribed for, or liable to pay the moneys advanced for the same, The authority of the intestate to purchase the stock in his own name, on the joint account of himself and the defendant, I think was sufficiently established by parol, and a written instrument executed…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Burr v. . WilcoxNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
- McWhorter v. McMahanNew York Court of Chancery · 1843
- Bank of Rochester v. MonteathCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1845
- Troy Turnpike & Railroad v. M'ChesneyNew York Supreme Court · 1839
- Betts v. PerineNew York Supreme Court · 1835
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Wiger v. CarrWisconsin Supreme Court · 1907
- Berg v. HoffmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1937