Small v. Herkimer Manufacturing & Hydraulic Co.
New York Court of Appeals
The Herkimer Manufacturing and Hydraulic Company sued William Small in the supreme court, and declared in assumpsit on his subscription for twenty-one shares of the capital stock of the company.
Read the full summary
The Herkimer Manufacturing and Hydraulic Company sued William Small in the supreme court, and declared in assumpsit on his subscription for twenty-one shares of the capital stock of the company. The fourth section of the plaintiff’s charter, [Laws of 1833, p. 191,) provides for a subscription to the capital stock, and makes it the duty of the directors for the time being to call upon the stockholders for payment of their subscriptions at such times and in such proportions as they should see fit, under penalty of forfeiture to the company of their shares and all previous payments made thereon,…
1Opinion of the Court
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] The supreme court in this case held, that the stock for which the defendant subscribed, was a security in the nature of a mortgage, for the payment of a debt incurred by the subscription, and that a forfeiture for non-payment was, in effect, nothing more than a strict foreclosure. Upon this branch of the case I have nothing to add to what was written when the case was before the court for the correction of errors. The notion of a pledge, or mortgage, is now…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Jackson v. TraerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1884
- Mandel v. Swan Land & Cattle Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1895
- Central Hanover Bank v. Roslyn Estates, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1943
- Johnson v. Albany & Susquehanna RailroadNew York Supreme Court · 1870
- White v. BenderDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 1911
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.