Subscriptio

That kind of imperial constitution which was granted in answer to the prayer of a petitioner who was present.

Calvinus.

SUBSCRIPTION (Lat. sub, under, scribo, to write). The placing a signature at the bottom of a written or printed engagement; or it is the attestation of a witness by so writing his name; but it has been holden that the attestation of an illiterate witness by making his mark is a sufficient subscription. 2 Ves. Sen. 454; 3 P. Wins. 253. ' The act by which a person makes an agreement over his signature in writing, to furnish a sum of money for a particular purpose; as, a subscription to a charitable institution, a subscription for a book, for a newspaper, and the like. One who subscribes, agreeably to the statute and by-laws of a chartered company, acquires a right to his shares, which is a sufficient consideration to make the subscription obligatory on him; but otherwise where the organization was not yet effected; Mc Carty v. Ii. Co., 87 Pa. 332; Boyd v. R. Co., 90 Pa. 169. A subscription for the payment of certain sums of money to a contemplated corporation, to be formed for a purpose for which the subscribers were to derive benefits, may or notice of such acceptance is necessary to make it binding; Richelieu Hotel Co. v. Encampment Co., 140 111.

248, 29 N. E. 1044, 33 Am. St. Rep. 234.

A subscription of a certain sum towards paying off a church debt made long after the debt was contracted and the church built, is without consideration and cannot be enforced; First Cong. Church v. Gillis, 17 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 614. A mere subscription for a charitable object cannot be enforced; Twenty- Third St. Rapt. Church v. Cornell, 117 N. Y. 601, 23 N. E. 177, 6 L. R. A. 807; Cottage St. M. E. Church v. Kendall, 121 Mass. 528, 23 Am. Rep. 286; Pratt v. Trustees, 93 111.

475, 34 Am. Rep. 187; University of Des Moines v. Livingston, 57 la. 307, 10 N. W. 738, 42 Am. Rep. 42.

A gratuitous subscription to promote the object for which a corporation is established, cannot be enforced unless the promisee has, in reliance on the promise sued on, done something or incurred or assumed some liability or obligation; it is not sufficient that others were led to subscribe by the subscription sought to be enforced; Cottage Street Church v. Kendall, 121 Mass. 528, 23 Am. Rep. 286; Twenty-Third St. Baptist Church v. Cornell, 117 N. Y. 601, 23 N. E. 177, 6 L. R. A. 807; University of Des Moines v. Livingston, 57 la.

307, 10 N. W. 738, 42 Am. Rep. 42.

The consideration which supports the promise of a subscriber to an enterprise is expenditure by the promisee on the faith of the subscription and not advantage to be gained by the promisor; Kinsley v. Military Encampment Co., 41 111.

App. 259; Mc Cabe v. O’Connor, 69 la. 134, 28 N. W. 573. See Johnson v. University, 41 Ohio St. 527.

Until liability has b6en incurred or acts have been done on the strength of the subscription, it may be withdrawn, and it is revoked by the insanity or death of the subscriber; Beach v. Church, 96 111.

177; Helfenstein’s Estate, 77 Pa. 328, 18 Am. Rep. 449.

It has been held that a subscription, to be binding, should be a promise to some particular person or committee; and there should be an agreement on the part of such person or committee to do something on their part: as, to provide materials or erect a building; Phillips Limerick Academy v. Davis, 11 Mass. 114, 6 Am. Dec. 162; Troy Conference Academy v. Nelson, 24 Vt. 189; Hamilton College v. Stewart, 1 N. Y. 581. If advances were fairly authorized, and have been made on the strength of the subscriptions, it will be deemed sufficient to make them obligatory; Farmington Academy v. Allen, 14 Mass. 172, 7 Am. Dec. 201; Warren v. Stearns, 19 Pick. (Mass.) 73; Robertson v. March, 4 111. (3 Scam.) 198; University of Vermont v. Buell, 2 Vt. 48; they form a Consideration for, each other; Edinboro Academy v. Robinson, 37 Pa. 210, 78 Am. Dec. 421. can only be held binding on grounds of public policy.

See George v. Harris, 4 N. H. 533, 17 Am. Dec. 446; Trustees of Church in Hanson v. Stetson, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 506; Corners Canal Fund v. Perry, 5 Ohio 58.

A subscription for shares implies a promise to pay for them, and this promise sustains an action to collect, without proof of any particular consideration; San Joaquin Land & Water Co. v. Beecher, 101 Cal. 70, 35 Pac. 319; Rutenbeck v. Hohn, 143 la.

13, 121 N. W. 698, 136 Am. St. Rep. 731.

An express promise to pay is not necessary in an English corporation, the statutes providing that the subscription shall be a debt due from the subscriber; Nashua Savings Bank v. Anglo- American Land Co., 1S9 U. S. 221, 23 Sup. Ct. 517, 47 L. Ed. 782. The signing of the subscription paper is an implied promise to pay the subscription; Hawley v. Upton, 102