§ 518.] THE LAW OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. [CHAP. IX. the performance of the conditions, provided they are per- formed within a reasonable time, 1 whereupon it will become binding absolutely. 2 Accordingly, where, by the terms of the subscription, the subscriber agreed to take shares and pay all charges and assessments regularly levied or as- sessed by the board of directors, it was held that the cor- poration could not recover until an assessment had been made ; and, further, that the terms of the subscription could not be contradicted by parol proof of an understanding that payment should be made without calls. 3 Likewise, if the charter of a corporation does not definitely fix the number of shares of which the capital stock is to be composed, this number must be fixed by the proper authority before a valid assessment can be laid on subscribers. 4 § 518. Again, if the contract to subscribe is conditioned on 1 See Fountain Ferry T. R. Co. v. Jewell, 8 B. Mon. (Ky.) 141; Cravens v. Eagle Mills Co., 120 Ind. 6. If the corporate enterprise is not started in good faith within the period prescribed by the charter, a subscriber is released. McCully v. Pittsburgh and Connellsville R. R. Co., 32 Pa. St. 25. See, also, Rams- gate Victoria Hotel Co. ». Monte- fiore, 4 H. & C. 164. 2 Chamberlain v. Painesville, etc., R. R. Co., 15 Ohio St. 225; Ashtabula, etc., R. R. Co. v. Smith, ib. 328; Mansfield, etc., R. R. Co. v. Brown, 26 Ohio St. 223; Armstrong v. Karsh- ner, 47 Ohio St. 276; Racine Co. Bk. v. Ayres, 12 Wis. 512; Rutland, etc., R. R. Co. v. Thrall, 35 Vt. 536, 543; Pittsburg and Connellsville R. R. Co. v. Stewart, 41 Pa. St. 54; Caley v. Phila. & Chester Co. R. R. Co., 80 Pa. St. 263; Webb v. Baltimore, etc., R. R. Co., 77 Md. 92. A corporation suing for the whole subscription may recover what is due unconditionally, though it fail to establish its right to recover the rest. St. Louis and Cedar Rapids R. R. Co. v. Eakins, 30 Iowa, 279. 530 But a conditional subscription has been held a mere offer, revocable until the condition is performed. Garret v. Dillsburg, etc., R. R. Co., 78 Pa. St. 465. 8 Grosse Isle Hotel Co. v. I'Anson, 43 N. J. L. 442; North Street R. R. Co. v. Spullock, 88 Ga. 283. But the subscriber cannot dispute the necessity of the assessment. Chou- teau Ins. Co. v. Floyd, 74 Mo. 286. Right of action on a subscription made subject to call does not accrue till the call is made, and conse- quently not till then does the statute of limitations begin to run. Macon and A. R. R. Co. v. Vason, 52 Ga. 326. Compare Braddock v. Phila. M. & M. R. R. Co., 45 N. J. L. 363. 4 Somerset R. R. Co. v. Clarke, 61 Me. 379; Same v. Cushing, 45 Me. 524; Worcester & Nashua R. R. Co. v. Hinds, 8 Cush. 110. Compare Bucksport, etc., R. R. Co. v. Buck, 65 Me. 536 ; Pike v. Bangor, etc., Shore Line R. R. Co., 68 Me. 445. A call upon part of the subscribers only is invalid. Brockway v. Gads- den, etc., Co., 102 Ala. 620.
