Legal Opinion

Belfast & Moosehead Lake Railway Co. v. Moore

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided July 1, 1872PublishedCited by 3 opinions

On report. Assumpsit to recover assessments on five shares of the plaintiff company, amounting in all to the par value — $500. The subscription contract was as follows: 1. Every person or corporation subscribing to said stock shall be-required to pay or secure to the acceptance of the treasurer, of said-company, and at tbe option and under tbe direction of said committee, the sum of ten dollars ($10) on each share so subscribed,— said money to be paid or security given to…

Read the full summary

On report. Assumpsit to recover assessments on five shares of the plaintiff company, amounting in all to the par value — $500. The subscription contract was as follows: 1. Every person or corporation subscribing to said stock shall be-required to pay or secure to the acceptance of the treasurer, of said-company, and at tbe option and under tbe direction of said committee, the sum of ten dollars ($10) on each share so subscribed,— said money to be paid or security given to said treasurer, whenever required. 2. If more stock shall have been subscribed for than is required to construct said…

1Opinion of the CourtDanforth, J.

This is ah action to recover the assessments made upon five shares of the stock of the plaintiff company. The plaintiff has declared and relies upon two separate written contracts entered into by the defendant. The first is an agreement simply to take five shares of the stock. In the writing we find no words showing a promise to pay for the shares, other than is implied in the word ‘ take,’ either in the contract or the conditions annexed to it. The fourth resolve referred to in the argument of counsel, and annexed to the contract, does not in any degree change the force of the agreement so…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Andover & Medford Turnpike Corp. v. GouldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
  2. Troy & Boston Railroad v. TibbitsNew York Supreme Court · 1854

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Universal Rim Co. v. ScottDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1922
  2. Ireland v. Globe Milling Co.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 1898
  3. Canyon Creek Elevator & Milling Co. v. AllisonMontana Supreme Court · 1917

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API