Zelaya Min. Co. v. Meyer
City of New York Municipal Court
Appeal from special term. The plaintiff is a mining corporation created under the act of 1848, c. 40, with a capital of $600,000. It issued a prospectus for the purpose of obtaining subscriptions to its capital, offering its stock, of the par value of $10 a share, for $7 per share. The defendant became a subscriber on these terms for 200 shares, and paid $140, 10 per cent, of the purchase price, and 200 shares were allotted to him in accordance with the prospectus.
Read the full summary
Appeal from special term. The plaintiff is a mining corporation created under the act of 1848, c. 40, with a capital of $600,000. It issued a prospectus for the purpose of obtaining subscriptions to its capital, offering its stock, of the par value of $10 a share, for $7 per share. The defendant became a subscriber on these terms for 200 shares, and paid $140, 10 per cent, of the purchase price, and 200 shares were allotted to him in accordance with the prospectus. The company thereafter assessed and demanded from the defendant further payments or installments aggregating $300, and, on his…
1Per curiam
The demurrer presents the question whether the scheme proposed by the plaintifffor placing its corporate stock on the market was legal. We assume that a corporation, like an individual, may sell stock owned by it for any price that meets the approval of the contracting parties, (Otter v. Petroleum Co., 50 Barb. 247;) and that, in selling its own stock for less than par, it may be assumed that the stock was fully paid up, and afterwards acquired by the company, (Id.) But that is not this. case. The prospectus is*488sued by the plaintiff was to induce persons to become subscribers to its capital…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Spring Co. v. KnowltonSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Knowlton v. . Congress Empire Spring Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Mann v. CookeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1850
- Sturges v. StetsonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio · 1858
- Fisk v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific RailroadNew York Supreme Court · 1868
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Kirkup v. Anaconda Amusement Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1921
- Stone v. YoungAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1924