
    Evan Morris et al., Trustee of Metalline Land Co. v. Metalline Land Co. B. A. Hoopes’s Appeal.
    
      Joint stock companies—Forfeiture of stock—Notice by publication.
    
    If the articles of association of an unincorporated company organized under the joint stock plan provide for a notice of a call or assessment in newspapers of two cities, and also for notice by mail, a failure to publish the notice in one of the cities avoids a forfeiture of the stock for nonpayment of the assessment, even if it appear that the stockholder whose stock was forfeited received actual notice of the assessment. Bi’ooking v. Metalline Land Co., 164 Pa. 326, followed.
    Argued Jan. 14, 1895.
    Appeal, No. 19, July T., 1894, by B. A. Hoopes, from decree of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., March T., 1889, No. 86, confirming report of master.
    Before Sterrbtt, C. J., Green, Williams, McCollum, Mitchell, Dean and Fell, JJ.
    Reversed.
    Bill in equity to ascertain persons entitled to share in distribution of partnership fund.s.
    The case was referred to Joseph J. Broadhurst, Esq., as master, from whose report it appeared that B. A. Hoopes was the owner of two hundred and fifty shares of the Metalline Land Co. of Lake Superior, and that the}^ were forfeited in the same manner as the shares of William H. Stevens were forfeited as stated in Morris v. Metalline Land Co., 164 Pa. 326.
    The master decided that the forfeiture was proper, and that Mr. Hoopes was not entitled to participate in the fund. Exceptions to master’s report were overruled, and his report confirmed.
    
      JSrror assigned among others was in confirming the master’s report.
    
      A. B. Shearer, William J. McMullan, with him, being absent on account of sickness, for appellant.
    No argument or paper-book offered for appellee.
    Feb. 18, 1895:
   Opinion by

Mr. Justice Green,

In the cases 307, 326 and 368 March Term, 1894, in which Brooking, Stevens and Miller were appellants, reported in vol. 164 Pa. Rep. 326, the parties to the record being the same as in the present case, we made a decree reversing the decree of the court below, and directing the record to be remitted with instructions to distribute the fund in the hands of the trustees in accordance with the opinion filed in those cases.

The present appeal, taken by B. A. Hoopes from the same decree, is in the same category with the former appeals and is controlled by the decision there made. For the reasons and upon the considerations stated in the former opinion we make the same decree as was there made.

The decree of the court below is reversed at the cost of the appellees, and the record is remitted with instructions to distribute the fund in the hands of the trustees in accordance with the opinion already filed.  