Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1865-03-30
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.

TUESDAY, March Is, 1855.
Hon. Jacob Brnkerhoff, Chief Justice; Hon. Josiah
Scott, Hon. William White, Hon. John Welch,
Sheppard, Clerk.
GENERAL DOCKET. A.a r
No. SO. Peter Gaudolfo ct al. v. James Walker ct
al. Error. Reserved in Hamilton county.
l. Testater directed in his will, that the executors
should carry his brewery business for years.
"for the benefit cf the estate and at the end Of that
time should deliver the brewery and its proceeds"
TO residuary legatees named in the will; and the
ecutors carried on the business accordingly; using
and employing the funds Of the estate for that pur
pose. Held That the moneys and profits arising
from the business, were assets in the hands Of the
executors, for the administration Of which their
The bond Of the sureties in such cases is not in
validated by the fact that it contains, in addition TO
the statutory form, condition that the executors
shall pay the debts and legacies Of the estate.
8. Where decree of the proper court has been
rendered. directing the executor TO pay TO the resd-
nary the balance found by the court to be due
upon n petition filed By the executors against the
legatees, and the Probote Court has ordered the
finding of the Probate Court is necessary to enable
the iegatees to bring suit upon the bond.
No. i4S. Harmsn Chamberlain v. The Paines.
vile and Hudson Railroad Company. Error. Re-
served in the District Court Of Gcauga county.
Where subscription was made to q railroad com
pany for given number Of shares OF stock, payable
A. such times, and in such instalments as the di
rectors may prescribe, provided the road Is perma
nently located" given route, and that frelgh
| house and der OF be built" alta point named-Hed;
l. That on the permanent location OF the road. II
accordance with the terms proposed, the subscrip
| tion became absolute.
q That the provision in relation TO the erection
the buildings was stipulation merely. and its per
formauce was not condition precedent TO the righ
/ 10 collect the amount Of the subscription.
A. The giving, by subscriber. OF his note for IN
balance Of his subscription. and taking, therefor
from The company, q receipt etipulating that, whe
/ mid. the amount Of the note should be applied o
his stock, was prin,G Jacie. waiver Of condition
After the requisite amount of stock has bee
subscribed TO authorize the stockholders TO elect d
ectors IL Is not indispensable TO election that th
notice for it should be given by the persons name
NJ - ths certi6cate Of incorporation. The valdtyt
The acts of the directors cannot be Questioned, co
st.rslIy. on the grounds Of irregularity in giyin
'ns Ssc Of the act for the crestion and reguatio
Il of ;ncorporated companies q >. U. Statutes, ~
does not prescribe the form Of making subscription
4. nor does the want Of stipulation for the paymel
i OF Ave dollars on each share Of Stock render u
| subscription invalid.
note pleads in general terms, that 1t is wholly Will
ont Consideration and void, and the plaintiff, wit
ont recurring statement Of the facts on which y
defense is based joins ISSUE any evidence Is aduii
sible on the trial which tends to impeach or snsta
the consideration. - .syclGLi-J iGtii
JUDGMENT affirmed.