
    The Philadelphia Medical Publishing Company, Appellant, v. Wolfenden.
    
      Contracts — Stock subscription — Affidavits of defense — Buie for judgment.
    
    In an action by a corporation to recover a balance of $4,000 due on an alleged oral agreement to subscribe for $5,000 of the stock of the corporation, an affidavit of defense is sufficient which avers that defendant’s agreement was to invest $1,000 in the stock and that he never agreed to subscribe for a larger amount.
    Argued Jan. 7, 1913.
    Appeal, No. 171, Jan. T., 1912, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 5, Philadelphia Co., Dec. T., 1911, No. 2659, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of The Philadelphia Medical Publishing Company v. Thomas T. Wolfenden.
    Before Fell, C. J., Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Stewart and Moschzisker, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Assumpsit to recover balance due upon a subscription to stock. Plaintiff alleged in its statement of claim that defendant had orally agreed to subscribe to 300 shareg of plaintiff company’s stock, and had agreed to pay therefor the sum of $5,000.00, upon which he had paid $1,000.00, leaving a balance due of $4,000.00. Defendant filed an affidavit of defense, in which he averred, inter alia:
    “It is untrue, and he denies, that on or about the nineteenth day of October, 1911, he ‘promised and agreed with others who were to be stockholders in said corporation that he the defendant would take, subscribe and purchase three hundred shares of said company’s stock when said company was chartered and would pay therefor into the company’s treasury the sum of five thousand dollars.’ Deponent further denies that he promised at the time aforesaid to pay the balance, to wit: the sum of four thousand dollars, (in addition to the sum of one thousand dollars paid by him under circumstances hereinafter set forth), when said company’s charter was granted.”
    The affidavit averred the circumstances under which the thousand dollars above mentioned was paid and set up various other defenses not considered by the Supreme Court.
    Plaintiff took a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, which the court subsequently discharged. Plaintiff appealed.
    
      Error assigned was the order of the court discharging the rule.
    
      John F. Gorman, with him Leo J. Gorman and William Gorman, for appellant.
    
      Adolph Eichholz, for appellee.
    February 3, 1913:
   Per Curiam,

This appeal is from an order discharging a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The action was by a corporation, of which the defendant became an officer, to recover on an oral agreement alleged to have been made by him to subscribe for $5,000.00 of the stock of the corporation when a charter was obtained. It is averred in the affidavit of defense that the defendant’s agreement was to invest $1,000.00 in the stock of the corporation and that he never agreed to subscribe for a larger amount of stock. This denial went to the foundation of the plaintiff’s claim, and if established by proof, would defeat a recovery. The issue raised was for the jury.

The order is affirmed.  