Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/554

 § 521.] THE LAW OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. [CHAP. IX. § 521. It is the better and almost universally accepted view „, , that a condition, in order to be operative, must be erbal con- 7. l ditionsand expressed in the subscription contract itself; and agreements that any verbal condition varying the terms of the void. written contract is void. 1 It may, indeed, be laid down as a general rule, that all parol agreements and secret understandings between the subscriber and the agent of the corporation who procures the subscription, in any way contrary to its terms, are void ; and the subscription is enforceable as if no such agreements or understandings had existed; 2 unless a fraud imputable to the corporation be shown. 3 And a sub- scriber cannot plead that his subscription was feigned and fraudulent, and that the company was party to the fraud ; for his subscription will be enforceable for the benefit of other subscribers and creditors. 4 Co., 44 Ga. 597. Compare Chelten- ham, etc., R'y Co. v. Daniel, 2 Eng. R'y Cas. 728. But see St. Paul, Stillwater, etc., R. R. Co. v. Robhins, 23 Minn. 439. But the tender of a certificate may by the terms of the subscription be made a condition. Courtright v. Deeds, 37 Iowa, 503. See § 511. 1 Nippenose M'f'g Co. v. Stadon, 68 Pa. St. 256 ; Miller v. Hanover Junction, etc., R. R. Co., 87 Pa. St. 95 ; Baile v. Educational Society, 47 Md. 117 ; see Hendrix v. Academy of Music, 73 Ga. 437 ; Bell v. Ameri- cus, etc., R. R. Co., 76 Ga. 754 ; Masonic Temple Ass'n v. Channell, 43 Minn. 353. But see Rinesmith v. People's Freight R'y Co., 90 Pa. St. 262. 2 Galena and S. W. R. R. Co. v. Ennor, 116 111. 55; Piscataqua Ferry Co. p. Jones, 39 N. H. 491 ; Thigpen v. Miss. Cent. R. R. Co., 32 Miss. 347 ; Smith v. Plankroad Co., 30 Ala. 650 ; La Grange, etc., Plank- road Co. v. Mays, 29 Mo. 64 ; Con- necticut, etc., Rivers R. R. Co. v. Bailey, 24 Vt. 465 ; Downie v. White, 12 Wis. 176 ; Mississippi, 534 etc., R. R. Co. v. Cross, 20 Ark. 443 ; New Albany, etc., R. R. Co. v. Fields, 10 Ind. 187 ; Evansville, etc., R. R. Co. v. Posey, 12 Ind. 363 ; Cunningham??. Edgefield, etc., R. R. Co., 2 Head (Tenn.), 23; North Carolina R. R. Co. v. Leach, 4 Jones L. (N. C.) 340 ; Scarlett v. Academy of Music, 46 Md. 132; Vicksburg, etc., R. R. Co. u. McLean, 12 La. Ann. 638 ; Phila., etc., R. R. Co. u. Conway, 177 Pa. St. 364 ; Whitehall, etc., R. R. Co. v. Myers, 16 Abb. Pr. N. S. (N. Y.) 34; Chouteau Ins. Co. v. Floyd, 74 Mo. 286 ; Topeka Mfg. Co. o. Hale, 39 Kan. 23. 3 Martin v. Pensacola, etc., R. R. Co., 8 Fla. 370; Vicksburg, etc., R. R. Co. v. McKean, supra; Mississippi, etc., R. R. Co. v. Cross, supra; Scar- lett v. Academy of Music, supra. See §§ 523 et seq., and Union Nat. Bk. v. Hunt, 76 Mo. 4:59. 4 Graff v. Pittsburg & Steubenville R. R. Co., 31 Pa. St. 489; Robinson v. Pittsburg & Connellsville R. R. Co., 32 Pa. St. 334; Barto v. Nix, 15 Wash. 563; Phcenix Wareh'ing Co. v. Badger, 6 Hun, 293, aff'd 67 N. Y. 294. See Bailey v. Pittsburg & Con-