Lieb v. Painter

Citations

• 42 Pa. Super. 399
• 1910 Pa. Super. LEXIS 340

Syllabus

<p>Contract — Delivery of stock — Corporation—Breach of contract — Defenses.</p> <p>1. In an action to recover money paid by plaintiff to defendant under an alleged contract by which the defendant was to deliver stock in a particular company then in process of formation, and the defendant denies the testimony of the plaintiff in support of the statement, and avers that the money paid had been paid to the defendant as an officer or agent of the company, and as a part of plaintiff’s stock subscription, the question of defendant’s liability is, under the conflicting testimony, a question for the jury.</p> <p>2. In such a case the fact that no stock was ever issued by the company, and that this was through no fault of the defendant, or the fact that the defendant expended the money for the company’s benefit, or both facts combined, does not constitute a defense.</p> <p>Trial — Evidence—Offers—Practice, C. P.</p> <p>3. It is always the duty of a party making an offer when its admissibility is challenged to state the purpose in such manner that court may perceive its relevancy.</p>