Vandemark v. Actuating Farm Gate Co.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Vandemark v. Actuating Farm Gate Co.

6 Ohio Law. Abs. 204

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Vandemark v. Actuating Farm Gate Co.. Read the opinion of the Court — 26 Ohio App. 190 →

Ohio Court of Appeals·Decided July 1, 1928·Published

Opinion

KUNKLE, J.

1. Where a subscriber to the capital stock of a private corporation gave a promissory note in payment of such stock, and the company gave a mortgage to secure its indorsement, both the giving of the note and the securing of the note by the giving of a mortgage are valid transactions.

2. When a corporation incurs debts in excess of the amounts allowed by its charter, such indebtedness will be valid in the absence of notice to the party taking such obligation.

(Allread and Ferneding, JJ., concur.)

For reference to full opinion, see Omnibus Index, last page, this issue.

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

KUNKLE, J.

1. Where a subscriber to the capital stock of a private corporation gave a promissory note in payment of such stock, and the company gave a mortgage to secure its indorsement, both the giving of the note and the securing of the note by the giving of a mortgage are valid transactions.

2. When a corporation incurs debts in excess of the amounts allowed by its charter, such indebtedness will be valid in the absence of notice to the party taking such obligation.

(Allread and Ferneding, JJ., concur.)

For reference to full opinion, see Omnibus Index, last page, this issue.

Vandemark v. Actuating Farm Gate Co., 6 Ohio Law. Abs. 204 (Ohio Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

6 Ohio Law. Abs. 204 (Vandemark v. Actuating Farm Gate Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.