Crossman v. Penrose Ferry Bridge Company

• Decision Date: 01 January 1856
• Citation: 26 Pa. 69
• Parties: Crossman versus Penrose Ferry Bridge Company.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

26 Pa. 69

Crossman versus Penrose Ferry Bridge Company.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

ERROR to the District Court of Philadelphia.

R. K. Scott and S. Hood, for plaintiff in error.

A. H. Smith, for defendant in error.

The opinion of the court was delivered by KNOX, J.

This action was brought by "The Penrose Ferry Bridge Company" against George H. Crossman, to recover the amount subscribed by the defendant to the capital stock of the company, plaintiff. Judgment was entered by the District Court for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence, to reverse which judgment this writ of error was taken.

Two errors are assigned, — "1. Because judgment was entered for the plaintiff below, notwithstanding the suggestion filed."

"2. Because judgment was entered for the plaintiff below, notwithstanding the affidavit of defence filed."

We do not understand, by the plaintiff in error's paper-book, that he relies upon the first assignment of error. It is clear that the copies of the instruments of writing, filed in pursuance of the rule of court, were of such a nature as to require an affidavit of defence; and the only point of inquiry here is as to the sufficiency of the affidavit filed.

We will consider the grounds of defence in the order in which they are stated in the affidavit. It is alleged that the defendant was induced to make the subscription by the representation of Mr. Serrill, to whom he gave the power of attorney, and who represented himself as one of the commissioners to procure subscriptions — "that the proposed bridge was to be connected with Broad street by a plank-road, and that he would secure him (the deponent) ten shares of stock therein, which was said to be profitable and a good investment; and that the cost of the bridge would not exceed $9000 or $10,000." It is further alleged that no stock in the plank-road has been tendered to the defendant, and the contract price of the bridge was from $14,000 to $15,000.

It is unquestionably true that, where one is induced to make a subscription to the capital stock of a company by fraudulent representations or false statements of an agent of the company or commissioner appointed to obtain subscriptions, the contract may be avoided by the subscriber; but a mere promise by the agent to procure stock for the subscriber in another company will not have this effect, nor will a mistaken estimate of the probable cost of the improvement.

The affidavit further alleges that the deponent "is informed,...