Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/546

 § 514.] THE LAW OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. [CHAP. IX. subscriber p a ,y f or them. 1 And this implied promise arises, to pay for l J, r r the shares, although a power to forfeit or sell the shares for non- payment may be expressly given to the corporation. 2 The courts of Massachusetts, Maine, and, possibly, Now Hampshire, follow a contrary doctrine, holding that a subscription for shares in a corporation subjects the subscriber only to the liabilities imposed by the statute under which the corporation was organized ; and when a corporation is authorized by statute to assess the shares, and sell them for non-payment of assessments, and a subscriber has not expressly promised to pay assessments, no promise can be implied which will enable the corporation to maintain an action against him personally, even though the sale of the shares under the statute fails to bring enough to pay the assessment. 3 § 514. The following statement of the law in New Hamp- shire is at least lucid, whatever objection may be taken to it : 1 Upton v. Tribilcock, 91 U. S. 45 ; Webster v. Upton, ib. 65 ; Lake On- tario, etc., R. R. Co. v. Mason, 16 N. Y. 451 ; Rensselaer, etc., Plank- road Co. i). Barton, ib. 457, note ; Miller v. Wild Cat Gravel Road Co., 52 Ind. 51 ; Sagory v. Dubois, 3 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 466; Dayton v. Borst, 31 N. Y. 435 ; Fry's Ex'r v. Lexington, etc., R. R. Co., 2 Mete. (Ky. ) 314 ; Beene v. Cabawba, etc., R. R. Co., 3 Ala. 660 ; Gill's Adm'r v. Kentucky, etc., Mining Co., 7 Bush (Ky.), 635 ; Chase v. Railroad Co., 5 Lea (Tenn.), 415 ; Waukon, etc., R. R. Co. v. Dwyer, 49 Iowa, 121 ; Nulton v. Clayton, 54 Iowa, 425 ; Mansfield, etc., R. R. Co. v. Brown, 26 Ohio St. 223 ; Electric Co. v. Tandy, 66 Vt. 248 ; Walter 0. Merced Academy Ass'n, 126 Cal. 582. See Small v. Herkimer Mfg. Co., 2 N. Y. 330. Cf. N. H. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Johnson, 30 N. H. 390 ; Mount Ster- ling Coal Co. v. Little, 14 Bush (Ky. ), 429 ; Russell V. Bristol, 49 Conn. 251. If a person makes a valid contract on sufficient consideration with a 526 corporation to take stock in it and refuses to comply without fault on the part of the corporation, it may recover such damages for the breach as it has sustained. Quick v. Lemon, 105 111. 578. 2 Dexter, etc., Plankroad Co. v. Millerd, 3 Mich. 91 ; Hughes t>. An- tietam M'f'g Co., 34 Md. 316. Con- tra, Odd Fellows' Hall Co. v. Glazier, 5 Harr. (Del.) 172. See § 546. 3 Mechanics' Foundry, etc., Co. v. Hall, 121 Mass. 272. See, also, Ken- nebec, etc., R. R. Co. v. Kendall, 31 Me. 470 ; Belfast, etc., R. R. Co. v. Moore, 60 Me. 561 ; Penobscot, etc., R. R. Co. v. Dunn, 39 Me. 587. An amendment to a charter cannot op- erate to make a subscriber person- ally liable on his subscription when he was not so liable before. Belfast, etc., R. R. Co. v. Moon, 60 Me. 561. But by charter-provisions stocks may be liable to further assessments by the corporation after the full par value has been paid. Price's Appeal, 106 Pa. St. 421. Compare Dewey v. St. Albans Trust Co., 57 Vt. 332.