Acetylene Light, Heat & Power Co. v. Beck
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 140, Oct. T., 1897, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Pbila. Co., March T., 1897, No. 287, for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Assumpsit to recover unpaid subscription to stock.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 140, Oct. T., 1897, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Pbila. Co., March T., 1897, No. 287, for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Assumpsit to recover unpaid subscription to stock. Plaintiff’s statement set out an agreement under seal whereby the defendant subscribed to eighty shares of the capital stock of the plaintiff company, agreeing to pay fiftjr per centum at the time of signing the agreement and to pay the additional fifty per centum when and as the same shall be called by the board of directors of the corporation. Subsequent to the payment of the…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Smith, J.,
In this action, brought on a contract of subscription to stock, a judgment was entered for the plaintiff for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The subscription of the defendant was in writing, under his hand and seal, and in law is an ordinary contract : Railroad v. Graham, 36 Pa. 77. And with reference to other subscribers, it is a trilateral contract: Railroad v. Conway, 177 Pa. 364. In terms, it is an unqualified agreement to purchase eighty shares of stock, fifty per centum of the price to be paid down, and the balance as called for by the corporation. It…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Philadelphia & Delaware County Railroad v. ConwaySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Pittsburgh & Connellsville Railroad v. GrahamSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1859
- Bristol Iron & Steel Co. v. SelliezSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
3Cited by1 opinion
- Acetylene Light, Heat & Power Co. v. SmithSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1899