Case Name: SEACOAST PACKING CO. v. LONG
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1921-08-01
Citations: 116 S.C. 406
Docket Number: 10704
Parties: SEACOAST PACKING CO. v. LONG
Judges: Mr. Chiee Justice Gary and Mr. Justice Watts concur.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 116
Pages: 406–411

Head Matter:
10704
SEACOAST PACKING CO. v. LONG
(108 S. E. 159)
1. Evidence — Whitten Subscription Contract Cannot be Varied by Parol. — A written subscription to corporate stock cannot be varied by proof of a parol contract made by the parties soliciting the subscription.
2. Corporation — In Action on Stock Subscription, Allegation as to Agreement and Fraudulent Kepkesentations op Solicitors Held not to State a Defense. — In an action on a stock subscription, allegations that parties soliciting the subscription made a • certain parol contract and made fraudulent representations do not state a defense where nothing is alleged to show any connection between the corporation and those soliciting the subscription.
3. Corporations — Stock Subscription Enforceable, Though Made Before Organization. — It is not a defense to an action on a stock subscription that the subscription was made before the corporation had come into existence as bona fide subscription to the capital stock is a condition precedent to the formation of the corporation.
Before DeVore, J., Beaufort.
Affirmed.
Action by Seacoast Packing Co. against R. A. Bong. From order striking out certain defenses as sham, the defendant appeals.
Mr. Randolph Murdaugh, for appellant,
cites: Subscriber may give his subscription on condition that full amount be subscribed: 14 C. J., 538, et seq. Defense to be frivolous must be manifestly so: 2 S. C., 422. Answer set up proper defenses: 1 S. E., 255; 73 Ga., 437; 109 Md., 558; 130 Am. St. Rep.) 531; 16 Ann. Cas., 1247; 16 S. E., 877; 75'Md., 367; 14 C. J., 538.
Mr. W. J. Thomas, for respondent,
cites: Corporation may get charter after subscription of 50 per cent, of stock: 1 Civ. Code, 1912, Secs. 2837-8; 16 A. & E. Ann. Cas., 1255-6. Mismanagement no .defense by subscriber: 48 S. C., 278. Mistaken belief that he could forfeit subscription no de fense: 10 Rich. L-, 282-3. Nor can subscriber set off debt of corporation against, subscription: 57 S. C., 52. 55 S. C., 78; 43 S. C., 80a
August 1, 1921.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Fraser.
The complaint alleges that the défendant, along with others, subscribed. in writing for five shares of the capital stock of the plaintiff corporation at a par value of $100 per share and had failed to .comply with the terms of the subscription.
The defendant, for a second defense, alleges a failure of the plaintiff to comply with a certain parol contract made by "the parties soliciting his subscription," and that the representations were fraudulently made. The third defense was that the subscription was made before the corporation had come into existence. On motion these defenses were stricken out as sham. From this order this appeal is taken.
I. Inasmuch as a written contract cannot be varied by parol, and nothing was alleged to show any connection between the corporation and "those who solicited the subscription, this defense could be stricken out 'without argument.' "
II. Inasmuch as bona fida subscription to the capi~ tal stock is a condition precedent to the formation of a corporation, this defense also fails "without argument."
The exceptions are overruled and the order appealed from is affirmed. • ,
Mr. Chiee Justice Gary and Mr. Justice Watts concur.