PER CURIAM.
Respondents have filed a petition for rehearing upon this appeal. In our view rehearing is not warranted. One ground, however, would seem to warrant comment.
In disposing of the contention of respondent de Sollano that he had in any event made a valid subscription to the stock, we stated in our original opinion: "De Sollano also contended that the corporation was indebted to him in sums exceeding the amount necessary for his pre-emptive payments...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.