Robinson v. The Pittsburgh and Connellsville Railroad Company
| Decision Date | 01 January 1858 |
| Parties | Robinson versus The Pittsburgh and Connellsville Railroad Company. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Williams & Sproul, for the plaintiff in error.
Hamilton and Sewell, for the defendant in error.
The assignments of error are all founded on the charge of the court, and are supported by such verbal criticisms as are easy to be made; but which amount to nothing when they overlook the plain purport, intent, and drift of the language used. In looking through the charge of the learned judge, we think it was more favourable to the defendant than it should have been.
For instance, he puts the answer to the first ground of defence on the incapacity of parol evidence to control the written subscription, whereas he might have set aside that branch of the defence on the ground of fraud also.
If the defendant's subscription was made for the purposes explained in Larimer's certificate, it was, whether so intended or not, a fraud on the company, and on all subsequent subscribers, the legal consequence of which would be, that while the defendant might not reap any advantage from it, he would be held to all the responsibilities of a bonâ fide subscriber: Angell & Ames on Corporations, p. 146, and the cases there cited. I refer also to what was said on this point in Graff's Executrix v. The Pittsburgh and Steubenville Railroad Company, 7 Casey 489.
The court did not deprive the defendant of the benefit of his position, that Larimer had taken this stock off his hands, and transferred it to the company, and so extinguished it; but the difficulty was that the jury did not believe it. They applied the written memorandum at the foot of the subscription to the stock transferred in 1848, among which were 107 shares in the name of the defendant; and hence, the memorandum had no other effect upon the subscription of 1853 than to entitle the subscribers to a credit on each share of $1.07. This balance resulted from their former payments of $2.50 on each of the transferred shares, for which they had received from Larimer $1.43 a share, leaving them out of pocket $1.07 a share — the amount which was to be credited on the new subscription.
We apprehend that this was a very sound conclusion from all the evidence in the case, and we conceive that the defendant has no reason to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frazier v. Zachariah
... ... defendants were stockholders in the Gilmer Grocery Company ... Book is evidence of who is stockholder ... Blair, 109 N.Y. 600, 4 A. S. R. 500; ... Robinson v. Pittsburg, etc., Ry. Co., 32 Pa. 334, 72 ... Am. Dec ... ...
-
First Nat. Bank of Greencastle v. Baer
... ... Bank of ... Pittsburgh v. Hoffman, 229 Pa. 429; Bedford v. Stever, ... 169 Pa ... 267; Custar v. Gas & ... Water Co., 63 Pa. 381; Robinson v. R.R., 32 Pa ... 334; Mapes v. Bank, 80 Pa. 163; Allen ... the Greencastle Fertilizer & Rendering Company, in which ... defendants were directors, and also ... ...
-
O&dell v. Appalachian Hotel Corp.
...450; Philadelphia & D. C. R. Co. v. Conway, 177 Pa. 364, 35 A. 716; Nippenose Mfg. Co. v. Stadon, 68 Pa. 256; Robinson v. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co., 32 Pa. 334, 72 Am. Dec. 792. See Hardin v. Sweeney, 14 Wash. 129, 44 P. 138. The second ground of demurrer: It seems clear that the contract in......
-
Gast v. King
...a fraud upon other subscribers. Foy v. Blackstone, 31 Ill. 538; Downie v. White, 12 Wis. 176; Smith v. Heidecker, 39 Mo. 157; Robinson v. Railway Co., 32 Pa. 334. In Paddock v. Fletcher et al., 42 Vt. 389, it is held: "The plaintiff having been induced to subscribe for a share of the capita......