Bole v. Belden Automobile Transmission Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 233, Oct. T., 1912, by W. M. Murray, defendant, from decree of C. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co., April T., 1908, No. 1068, dismissing petition to intervene in suit of George M. Bole, Receiver of Bair & Gazzam, et al., v. The Belden Automobile Transmission Company, et al., W. N. Murray. Petition to intervene as a plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 233, Oct. T., 1912, by W. M. Murray, defendant, from decree of C. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co., April T., 1908, No. 1068, dismissing petition to intervene in suit of George M. Bole, Receiver of Bair & Gazzam, et al., v. The Belden Automobile Transmission Company, et al., W. N. Murray. Petition to intervene as a plaintiff. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court and in Bole v. Murray, 233 Pa. 589. Error assigned was decree dismissing petition to intervene.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Brown,
The bill in this case was filed by creditors of The Belden Automobile Transmission Company, an insolvent corporation, to compel subscribers to its capital stock to pay their subscriptions. Among these subscribers was W. N. Murray, the appellant, who had subscribed for seventy-five shares of the stock. His defense was that he had turned over to the corporation an automobile for which he had paid $2,800.00 and on which, for the purpose of demonstrating the usefulness and adaptability of certain appliances in connection with motor cars to be manufactured by the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Tarbox v. HaysSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1837
- Ogle v. BakerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1891
- Bole v. MurraySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
3Cited by2 opinions
- Valmont Developing Co. v. RosserSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
- Sale v. Schwehm, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1930