Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/551

 CHAP. IX.] CORPORATION AND SHAREHOLDERS. [§ 518. the subscription of a certain amount, it may not be gub. enforced until that amount is subscribed for; 1 and tion of total i. . ., amount if a certain amount or stock is mentioned in the named in charter or articles of association, a contract to sub- scribe is impliedly conditioned on the subscription of that amount, 2 unless the terms of the subscription contract or of the statute under which the corporation is organized 3 are inconsistent with the existence of such implied condi- tions. 4 And the subscriptions, to fulfill this condition, must be valid and made by solvent persons apparently able to pay for the shares subscribed for by them. 5 It may be added gen- erally, that whatever conditions are imposed on the corporation by the subscription contract must be performed before the con- tract can be enforced. 6 But the rule that, when the capital 1 Philadelphia & West Chester R. R. Co. o. Hickman, 28 Pa. St. 318; Chase v. Sycamore, etc., R. R. Co., 3S 111. 215: Morris Canal, etc., Co. v. Nathan, 2 Hall (N. Y.), 239; Belfast & M. L. R. R. Co. v. Cothrell, 66 Me. 185; Monadnock R. R. v. Felt, 52 N. H. 379. 2 Atlautic Cotton Mills v. Abbot, 9 Cush. 423; Katama Land Co. v. Jer- negan, 126 Mass. 155; Read v. Mem- phis Gayoso Gas Co., 9 Heisk. (Tenn.) 545; Littleton Mfg. Co. v. Parker, 14 N. H. 543; Contoocook Valley R. R. v. Barker, 32 N. H. 363; Peoria & R. I. R. R. Co. v. Preston. 35 Iowa, 115; Memphis Branch R. R. Co. v. Sullivan, 57 Ga. 240; Allman v. Havana, etc., R. R. Co., 88 111. 521; Hughes v. Antietam Mfg. Co., 34 Md. 316; Hotel Co. v. Schram, 6 Wash. 134; Elder v. New Zealand Land Improvement Co., 30 L. T. N. S. 285 ; Hendrix o. Academy of Music, 73 Ga. 437; Hale v. Sanborn, 16 Neb. 1; Rockland, etc., Steamboat Co. v. Sewall, 78 Me. 167; Exposition R. R. Co. v. Railroad Co., 42 La. Ann. 370; Haskell o. Worthington, 94 Mo. 560. See People's Ferry Co. v. Balch, 8 Gray, 303; Pierce v. Jersey Water Works Co., L. R. 5 Exch. 209; New- port Cotton Mill Co. v. Minis, 103 Tenn. 465. Compare McDougall v. Jersey Imperial Hotel Co., 10 Jur. N. S. 1043; Warwick R. R. Co. v. Cady, 11 R. I. 131; Nutter r, Lexing- ton, etc., R. R. Co., 6 Gray, 85; Haw- kins v. Citizens' Inv. Co., 38 Or. 544. Contra, Nelson v. Blakey, 54 Ind. 29. See, also, § 96. 3 Lincoln Mfg. Co. v. Sheldon, 44 Neb. 279. 4 Iowa & Minn. R. R. Co. v. Per- kins, 28 Iowa, 281; see Selma, M. & M. R. R. Co. o. Anderson. 51 Miss. 829; Skowhegan & A. R. R. Co. v. Kinsman. 77 Me. 370; Sedalia, W. & S. Ry. Co. ». Abell, 17 Mo. App. 645; Arkadelphin Cotton Mills v. Trimble, 54 Ark. 316. 5 Lewey's Island R. R. Co. v. Bol- ton, 48 Me. 451; Phillips v. Coving- ton, etc., Bridge Co., 2 Met. (Ky.) 219. See Holman v. State, 105 Ind. 569, 571. 6 Santa Cruz R. R. Co. v. Schwartz, 53 Cal. 106; Swartwout v. Mich. Air Line R. R. Co., 24 Mich. 389; Car- lisle v. Cahawba, etc., R. R. Co., 4 Ala. 70; Trott v. Sarchett, 10 O. St. 241; Thompson u. Oliver, IS Iowa, 531