Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/549

 CHAP. IX.] CORPORATION AND SHAREHOLDERS. [§ 51 ?- formance of conditions precedent prescribed by the constitution, in order to invalidate his subscription agreement, at least if any one who has acted on the faith of such agreement would be in- jured by its non-fulfillment. Thus, where the constitution of the corporation requires a preliminary deposit to be paid by the subscriber, and the subscriber fails to pay it, he may not plead his own omission in answer to a suit for calls. 1 This seems entirely correct on principle, though there are decisions to the contrary. 2 § 517. If the contract of subscription is to be held bind- ing, then must be considered whether it is so abso- Conditions lutely or conditionally. 3 It will be binding abso- Levy of iii t • • i i assess- lutely when conditions neither exist in the contract merit. itself nor can be imported into it from the constitution of the corporation. Otherwise, it will be binding conditionally until Co. v. Mabbett, 58 N. Y. 397; Car- lisle v. Saginaw Valley R. R. Co., 27 Mich. 315; Shurtz v. Schoolcraft, etc., R. R. Co., 9 Mich. 269; Coppage v. Hutton, 124 Ind. 401. 1 Lake Ontario, etc., R. R. Co. v. Mason, 16 N. Y. 451; Rensselaer, etc., Plank Road Co. v. Barton, ib. 457, note; Illinois River R. R. Co. v. Zimmer, 20 111. 654 ; Ryder v. Alton, etc., R. R. Co., 13 111. 516; Haywood, etc., Plank Road Co. v. Bryan, 6 Jones (N. C), Law, 82; Home Stock Ins. Co. v. Sherwood, 72 Mo. 461; Sedalia W. and S. Ry. Co. v. Abell, 17 Mo. App. 645; Thorp v. Woodhull, 1 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 411; Vicksburg, etc., R. R. Co. v. McKean, 12 La. Ann. 638; Mitchell o. Rome R. R. Co., 17 Ga. 574; Wight v. Shelby R. R. Co., 16 B. Mon. (Ky. ) 4; Piscataqua Ferry Co. v. Jones, 39 X. H. 491; Pittsburg W. and R. R. R. Co. v. Applegate, 21 W. Va. 172; Webb v. Baltimore, etc., R. R. Co., 77 Md. 92; West End Co. v. Claiborne, 97 Va. 734. 2 Wood v. Coosa, etc., R. R. Co., 32 Ga. 273; Jenkins v. Union Turn- pike Co., 1 Caincs Cas. in Er. (N. Y.) 34 86; Goshen, etc., Turnpike Co. v. Hurtin, 9 Johns. 217; Boyd v. Peach Bottom R'y Co., 90 Pa. St. 169. See Excelsior Grain Binder Co. v. Stay- ner, 25 Hun, 91; Fiser v. Miss, and Tenn. R. R. Co., 32 Miss. 359. Com- pare Garrett v. Dillsburg, etc., R. R. Co., 78 Pa. St. 465. 3 Subscribing conditionally to shares does not make the subscriber a shareholder till the condition is performed. Evansville, etc., R. R. Co. v. Shearer, 10 Ind. 244. It is held in Pennsylvania that when one subscribes conditionally to the stock of a railroad company, before the procurement of its charter, the con- dition is void and the subscription is absolute. Bedford R. R. Co. v. Bowser, 48 Pa. St. 29 ; Caley ». Phila., etc., R. R. Co., 80 Pa. St. 263; Pittsburgh and S. R. R. Co. v. Biggar, 34 Pa. St. 455. The writer fails to see the correctness of these decisions, which in effect make for the subscriber a contract he never entered into. They did not turn on any question of the condition being verbal or written. 529