they  were  actinir  in  ^uch  capacity,  thU  court  holda  that  they  were  in-
di^idnally  liable  thereon,  and  declines  to  interfere  with  the  verdict  for
the  plaintiffM.    Sharp  v.  Smith.  336

5.  In  an  action  brought  to  recover  a  sum  named  in  a  contract  as  the
conuderation  of  a  deed  of  the  ri^rht  to  an  invention  within  a  certain
specified  territory,  this  conrt  boldp,  that  under  the  samv,  the  tender  of
a  deed  was  necessary  to  complete  the  right  of  action  for  the  earn  in
question;  that  the  accept  i nee  of  tlie  contract  by  defendants,  though
without  signing  it,  made  it  binding  on  them  upon  tender  within  a
reasonable  time  and  not  a  mere  option,  and  that  the  same  was  not
made  within  such  time.     IVheelerv,  FiahelU  S43

CORPORATIONS— See  Drainage,  I;  Insurance,  a

1.  The  attempted  release  by  the  directors  of  a  corpomiion,  of  one
subscriber  to  the  capital  stock  from  the  payment  of  his  8ubscription.
does  not  release  another  subscriber,  not  agreeing  to  such  attempted
release,  from  such  payment    Fey  v.  Peoria  Watch  Co.<,  618

2.  A  subscriber  to  the  ctipital  stock  of  a  corporation,  who  claims  to
be  released  from  bis  subscription  by  reason  of  fraudulent  inducement
used  in  securing  the  same,  must  claim  his  release  at  the  earliest  po»ti-
ble  moment.    Id.,  618

3.  The  installments  of  a  subscription  to  the  capital  stock  of  a  corpo-
ration draw  interest  from  the  date  when  they  become  due.     Id..      618

4.  In  an  ab^nce  of  statutory  requirement  to  the  contrary  a  director
of  a  corpomtion  need  not  necessarily  be  a  stockholder.    Id..  61 S

5.  In  the  case  presented,  this  court  holds  that  the  corporation  plaint-
iff having  been  organized  and  having  received  its  charter,  the  introduc-
tion of  the  subscription  paper  was  unnecessary  to  show  organization.
