
    Butternuts and Oxford Turnpike Company vs. North.
    The general turnpike act, (1 E. S. 580, 2d edi) confers no power on the commis- ■ sioners to receive conditional subscriptions for stock; and a subscription conditioned that the road should be laid through a specified place, is contrary to public policy, and void.
    Error from the Chenango common pleas. The action was upon a subscription for stock of the plaintiffs, containing an engagement to take stock, “ upon condition that said road shall- be laid by Fayette village and Guild-ford' Centre.” The commissioners for receiving subscriptions had obtained several signatures to this, and also to another absolute in its terms. The court below held that the defendant’s signature to the subscription in question did not bind him; and nonsuited the plaintiffs. They excepted, and after judgment in the court below, sued out a writ of error.
    
      H. R. Mygatt, for plaintiffs in error.
    
      J. Clapp, for defendant in error.
   By the Court, Cowen, J.

Subscriptions for stock under the turnpike act, (1 R. 8. 581, 2d. ed.) to which the plaintiffs were subject, (8ess. L. of 1834, p. 137,) must be absolute. This act confers no power to make conditions; and, to allow such a thing, would be contrary to public policy. Divers men would perhaps have their divers routes, and endeavor improperly to influence the course of the road. If the general subscription should contain a condition of this kind, there would be no stockholders till the road should be laid out accordingly; and separate subscriptions containing various conditions, might work a fraud upon those who subscribe absolutely. The court below decided correctly.

Judgment affirmed.  