Carson v. Arctic Mining Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne Circuit. This was an action of assumpsit, in which judgment was taken by default, for want of appearance and plea. The declaration contained two special counts and the common counts. The first special count set forth that the plaintiff below (defendant in error) was a corporation under the Act of 1853 (1 Comp.
Read the full summary
Error to Wayne Circuit. This was an action of assumpsit, in which judgment was taken by default, for want of appearance and plea. The declaration contained two special counts and the common counts. The first special count set forth that the plaintiff below (defendant in error) was a corporation under the Act of 1853 (1 Comp. L. 577), in which the defendant was an original shareholder, and that he signed the articles of association, by which he became the owner of 17,000 shares of $25 each, and received certificates therefor, whereby he became liable for and promised to pay all assessments,…
1Dissent
Campbell J.
dissenting:
Two questions arise in this case: First, Whether a stockholder in a Mining Company, organized under the law of 1853, is liable to an action for calls upon shares; and, Second, Whether he is liable for any deficiency which may remain after the Company has sold his shares on such calls.
No question can arise here upon any liability which a person may voluntarily take upon himself by a promise contained in a separate subscription. Here there is no subscription, properly so called, at all. The articles of association contain no promises, and are merely a statement of the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Hartford & New-Haven Rail Road v. KennedySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1838
- Danbury & Norwalk Railroad v. WilsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1852
- Dexter & Mason Plank Road Co. v. MillerdMichigan Supreme Court · 1854
- Fort Edward & Fort Miller Plank Road Co. v. PayneNew York Supreme Court · 1854