Tift v. Quaker City N. Bank

21 A. 660, 141 Pa. 550, 1891 Pa. LEXIS 1102
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided April 13, 1891·No. No. 160·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam :

The promise of Mr. Ditman that the plaintiff should be compensated for procuring subscriptions to the stock of the bank, bound no one but himself. It is true it was said in Bell’s Gap R. [553] Co. v. Christy, 79 Pa. 54, that where a number of persons, not incorporated, but associated for a common object intending to procure a charter, authorize acts to be done in furtherance of their object by one of their number with the understanding-that he shall be compensated, if such acts were necessary to the organization and its objects, and are accepted by the corporation and the benefits enjoyed, they must be taken cum onere and be compensated for. But it was also said that the promoters of the enterprise must be a majority. In the case in hand, the promise was made by a single promoter, and there is no evidence of a subsequent ratification by the corporation. The evidence referred to in the first assignment, if admitted by the court, would not have amounted to a ratification. It was not error to instruct the jury in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff’s case had failed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Tift v. Quaker City N. Bank, 21 A. 660, 141 Pa. 550, 1891 Pa. LEXIS 1102 (Pa. 1891).

21 A. 660 (Tift v. Quaker City N. Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Solomon v. Cedar Acres East, Inc.
317 A.2d 283 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1974)
Bonner v. Travelers Hotel Co.
120 A. 467 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1923)
Kirkup v. Anaconda Amusement Co.
197 P. 1005 (Montana Supreme Court, 1921)
Cushion Heel Shoe Co. v. Hartt
103 N.E. 1063 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1914)
Tanner v. Sinaloa Land & Fruit Co.
134 P. 586 (Utah Supreme Court, 1913)
Gailey v. New Castle Elastic Pulp Plaster Co.
34 Pa. Super. 533 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1907)