Newcomet v. Brotzman
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon county: No. 14, to May Term 1871. This was an action of assumpsit brought by George Brotzman against Samuel Neweomet, trading as Newcomet & Co., to recover for goods sold and delivered by the plaintiff for which he alleged the defendant was liable. The defence was that the goods had been sold to W. W. Newcomet, a son of the defendant, 'and not to the defendant.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon county: No. 14, to May Term 1871. This was an action of assumpsit brought by George Brotzman against Samuel Neweomet, trading as Newcomet & Co., to recover for goods sold and delivered by the plaintiff for which he alleged the defendant was liable. The defence was that the goods had been sold to W. W. Newcomet, a son of the defendant, 'and not to the defendant. The cause was tried, January 11th 1870, before Pearson, P. J. The facts in the case will appear as intelligibly and concisely in the following charge of Judge Pearson as they can be…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion the court was delivered by
Agnew, J.
This is a peculiar case, and was decided on its own circumstances. Ordinarily, when partners sell out to an entire stranger, no notice of the dissolution would’ be necessary to a person dealing with the purchaser. The very fact that he had not been a partner, and is doing business for himself, would be notice of the dissolution even to a former dealer with the firm. But in this case Samuel Newcomet, the party sued, was a member of the company. He had never transacted its business in person, but had placed his son, William W. Newcomet, there,…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Ruberoid Co. v. PattersonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1941