Joseph P. Bradley

“ The fact that some of the stock remains unsubscribed is not sufficient ground for a particular stockholder to withdraw his capital. There may be cases in which equity would interfere to protect subscribers to stock where a large and material deficiency in the amount of capital contemplated has occurred. But such cases would stand on their own circumstances. It could hardly be contended that the present case, in which more than 92 per cent. of the contemplated increase of capital was actually subscribed and paid in, would belong to that category. In Minor v. Bank, 1 Pet. ”

“ This clause would have been violated by an issued of $500,000 of new stock, when only $461,300 was paid in, but not by an issue of the exact amount that was paid in. The clause in question was intended to secure the actual payment of the stock subscribed, and so to prevent what is called watering of stock. In the present case, the statute was strictly and honestly complied with. The argument of the defendant asks too much. It would apply to the original capital of a company as well as to an increase of capital. ”

“ Some reliance is placed on the words of the act of Congress which auh orizes an increase of capital within the maximum prescribed in the articles of association. They are found in section 5142 of the Revised Statutes, which declares that any banking association may, by its articles, provide for an increase of its capital from time to time, but adds, 'No increase of capital shall be valid until the whole amount of such increase is paid in, and notice thereof has been transmitted to the comptroller of the currency, and his certificate obtained specifying the amount,' etc. ”