Lane v. Coin Machine Manufacturing Co.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 204, Oct. T., 1917, by defendant, from order of O. P. No. 3, Philadelphia Co., Sept. T., 1916, No. 128, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, in case of Guy S. Lane v. Coin Machine Mfg. Co. Assumpsit to recover money paid on a stock subscription. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The opinion of the Superior Court states the case.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 204, Oct. T., 1917, by defendant, from order of O. P. No. 3, Philadelphia Co., Sept. T., 1916, No. 128, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, in case of Guy S. Lane v. Coin Machine Mfg. Co. Assumpsit to recover money paid on a stock subscription. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The opinion of the Superior Court states the case. The court in an opinion by Ferguson, J., made absolute the rule for judgment. Error assigned was the order making absolute the rule for judgment. cited: Caley v. Philadelphia &…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Henderson, J.,
The defendant agreed to sell to the plaintiff five shares of its treasury stock of the par value of $100 per share for the consideration of $500, one hundred dollars of which was to be paid in cash and the remainder in monthly payments of twenty-five dollars each until the full amount of $500 was paid. Four hundred dollars were paid on the contract and when the plaintiff tendered the balance due and demanded his shares of stock the defendant offered him five shares of the par value of ten dollars per share. The explanation of this offer was that between the date of the…