Hudson v. West
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 128, Oct. T., 1898, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Allegheny County, April T., 1896, No. 607, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit for money had and received. Before White, P. J. West was the only defendant served.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 128, Oct. T., 1898, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Allegheny County, April T., 1896, No. 607, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit for money had and received. Before White, P. J. West was the only defendant served. At the trial it appeared that plaintiff had paid over to defendants $5,000, under an agreement which was in part as follows : “ And we agree with you to protect you in your investment with us, and that we will consider you as one of us in holding control of the company, and we will see that your interests are protected, and that as long as we are connected…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinión by
Mb. Justice Gbeen,
By the terms of the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants, the latter agreed that in consideration of the plain*495tiff investing with them $5,000 in a company to be formed by them for the manufacture of patented carpet lining and bottle wrappers, they, the defendants, would issue to him $10,000 of the stock of the company. The defendants further agreed that they would give the plaintiff a receipt for the $5,000 as the money was paid in and would issue proper certificates of stock when the company was properly formed, “ which will not be until we are ready…
2Cited by10 opinions
- William F. Mosser Co. v. Cherry River Boom & Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- Miller v. DenmanWashington Supreme Court · 1908
- Lieb v. PainterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
- Greiger v. SalzerSupreme Court of Colorado · 1917
- Jacobson v. McCulloughSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1911
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.