Bole v. Belden Automobile Transmission Co.
Decision Date | 06 January 1913 |
Docket Number | 233 |
Citation | 239 Pa. 1,86 A. 640 |
Parties | Bole v. Belden Automobile Transmission Co |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued November 1, 1912
Appeal, No. 233, Oct. T., 1912, by W. M. Murray, defendant from decree of C.P. No. 2, Allegheny Co., April T., 1908, No 1068, dismissing petition to intervene in suit of George M. Bole, Receiver of Bair & Gazzam, et al., v. The Belden Automobile Transmission Company, et al., W. N. Murray. Affirmed.
Petition to intervene as a plaintiff.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court and in Bole v. Murray, 233 Pa. 589.
Error assigned was decree dismissing petition to intervene.
Appeal dismissed at appellant's costs.
Harvey A. Miller, with him U. G. Vogan, for appellant. -- The petitioner had a right to intervene: Rankine v. Elliott, 16 N.Y. 377; Bickley v. Schlag, 46 N.J. Eq. 533 (20 A. Repr. 250).
The court clearly has the right to amend or modify its own decree, changing the decree in favor of the receiver for the benefit of all creditors of the Belden Automobile Transmission Company: Beek's App., 15 Pa. 406; Weller's App., 103 Pa. 594.
Charles F. Patterson, for appellees.
Before FELL, C.J., BROWN, POTTER, ELKIN and MOSCHZISKER, JJ.
The bill in this case was filed by creditors of The Belden Automobile Transmission Company, an insolvent corporation, to compel subscribers to its capital stock to pay their subscriptions. Among these subscribers was W. N. Murray, the appellant, who had subscribed for seventy-five shares of the stock. His defense was that he had turned over to the corporation an automobile for which he had paid $2,800.00 and on which, for the purpose of demonstrating the usefulness and adaptability of certain appliances in connection with motor cars to be manufactured by the corporation, he had expended sums of money amounting, when added to the original cost of the automobile, to a sum equal to his subscription for the stock. This defense was held to be unavailing by the court below, and in sustaining the decree ordering the defendant to pay so much of the amount due on his subscription as was necessary to pay the indebtedness of the corporation to the complaining creditors, we said, through Mr. Justice STEWART: : Bole v. Murray, 233 Pa. 589. This opinion was filed January 2d, 1912, and, on ...
To continue reading
Request your trial