Hudson Real Estate Co. v. Tower

30 N.E. 465, 156 Mass. 82, 1892 Mass. LEXIS 138
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedFebruary 26, 1892
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 30 N.E. 465 (Hudson Real Estate Co. v. Tower) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hudson Real Estate Co. v. Tower, 30 N.E. 465, 156 Mass. 82, 1892 Mass. LEXIS 138 (Mass. 1892).

Opinion

Allen, J.

At the time when the defendant signed the subscription paper declared on, it was not a contract, for want of a contracting party on the other side; but it has now been established that a subscription of this sort becomes a contract with the corporation when the corporation has been organized, and in this way the objection of the want of a proper contracting party is finally avoided, provided everything goes on as contemplated without any interruption. Until the organization of the corporation, the subscription is a • mere proposition or offer, which may be withdrawn, like any other unaccepted offer. Unless the signer is bound upon a contract, he is not bound at all. ' It [84]*84is open to him to withdraw. It is not on the ground that there was no sufficient consideration. The seal would do away with any doubt on that score. But it is on the ground that tor the time being and until the corporation is organized the writing does not take effect as a contract, because the contemplated party to the contract, on the other side, is not yet in existence, and for this reason, there being no contract, the whole undertaking is inchoate and incomplete, and since there is no contract the party may withdraw. Limerick Academy v. Davis, 11 Mass. 113. Thompson v. Page, 1 Met. 565. Ives v. Sterling, 6 Met. 310. Perkins v. Union Button-Hole Embroidery Machine Co. 12 Allen, 273. Athol Music Hall Co. v. Carey, 116 Mass. 471. Phipps v. Jones, 20 Penn. St. 260.

In the present case, there was evidence which would warrant a finding that the defendant thus withdrew, before the time came when his subscription would have become a contract.

Exceptions sustained.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Samia v. Central Oil Co. of Worcester
158 N.E.2d 469 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1959)
Johnson-Foster Co. v. D'Amore Construction Co.
50 N.E.2d 89 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1943)
L. E. Fosgate Co. v. Boston Market Terminal Co.
175 N.E. 86 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1931)
Coleman Hotel Co. v. Crawford
290 S.W. 810 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1927)
Collins v. Morgan Grain Co.
16 F.2d 253 (Ninth Circuit, 1926)
Jamestown Portland Cement Corp. v. Bowles
117 N.E. 41 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1917)
King v. Howeth & Co.
140 P. 1182 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1914)
Vermilion Sugar Co. v. Vallee
64 So. 670 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1914)
Wright Bros. v. Merchants & Planters Packet Co.
61 So. 550 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1913)
Planters & Merchants Independent Packet Co. v. Webb
46 So. 977 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1908)
Manchester Street Railway v. Williams
52 A. 461 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1902)
Sherwin v. Fletcher
47 N.E. 197 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1897)
Balfour v. Baker City Gas Co.
41 P. 164 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1895)
Bryant's Pond Steam Mill Co. v. Felt
33 L.R.A. 593 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1895)
Hudson Real Estate Co. v. Tower
36 N.E. 680 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1894)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
30 N.E. 465, 156 Mass. 82, 1892 Mass. LEXIS 138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hudson-real-estate-co-v-tower-mass-1892.