The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1902-06-21
STOCKHOLDERS NOT LIABLE.
COURT OF APPEALS DECIDES n1LKcAsE
Unpaid Subscriptions to Stock Of the United
Milk Producers Association Cannot Be
Collected, Unless Rights Have Been
Waived.

On Thursday the Court of Appeals delivered
an opinion in which many people of Maryland
are interested, and affects suits involving prob
ably $500, 900.
Out of the failure of the United Milk Pro-
ducers' Association grew three classes of suits,
instituted in all of the upper counties of the
state. About sixty suits were brought against
citizens of this county.
One class OF suits are on notes given to the
United Milk Producers Association, and
which were discounted and are in the hands
of third parties. Another class are suits TO
compel payment of unpaid subscriptions 10
stock by creditors of the Association, and the
third class are suits by the Receivers of the
Association to compel the payment of unpaid
subscriptions to the stock.
UT the suits on notes given to the United
Milk Producers Association, number have
been decided in favor of the plaintiffs i'll Bal
timOre county, but none have been taken to
the Court of Appeals. Some suits of the kind
are pending in Carroll, and the trial of one or
more of them is set for July Z.
The decision of the Court Of Appeals on
Thursday, in the case of the Gettysburg Ma
honal Bank VS.. Ezra c. Brown, determines
the other classes of suits in favor of the de-
PENDANTS. Cans Il Hannah, Stewart Janney
| and Reifsnider Il Grimes were counsel for the
bank, and Guy w. Steele, Bond & Parke and
Roberts Il Grouse we're counsel for Brown.
The suit was made test case, and attorneys
having this class of suits to defend joined in
the defense.
The suit against Brown by the bank was to
compel payment OF $257.50, the amount un-
paid ON his subscription to the stock of the
United Milk Producers Association. The
bank had discounted note of So, 600 given by
the Milk Producers Association and brought
suit as creditor Of the corporation under the
provision of the law that places upon stock
holder the double liability of paying the
amount of his unpaid subscription of stock in
corporation both to the receivers of the cor
poration and to the creditors of the corpora
ton who may bring suit against the stock
holder. The defense set up to this claim was
that the capital stock of the corporation was
$3.50, 600 and that before the corporation had
the right to begin its corporate existence the
full $3.50, 600 had to be fully subscribed before,
and that between $780, 900 and $50, 900 of the
capital stock was never taken, aud that, there
fore, the corporation could not begin IFS bust
ness legally or collect the subscription to its
stock. The Court of Appeals has affirmed the
ruling of the lower court and the result is that
the subscribers to the capital stock, who have
not waived their rights, will not have to pay
their unpaid subscription to the stock. either
to the receivers of the Association or to
creditor of the Association. Those who have
waived their rights, by personally participating
in the affairs of the Association and thus sane
tioning or agreeing to the acts done, are liable
for unpaid subscriptions.