McCutcheon v. Smith
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 206, Oct. T., 1895, by defendants, from decree of C. P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., March T., 1892, No. 669, on bill in equity. Bill in equity for an account.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 206, Oct. T., 1895, by defendants, from decree of C. P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., March T., 1892, No. 669, on bill in equity. Bill in equity for an account. The bill alleged that in November, 1867, William McCutcheon and George F. Smith entered into a partnership in the butchering business, and tbat said partnership was mutually dissolved on April 1,1876; that during the existence of the partnership a tract of land of forty-three acres in Ross township was purchased for the purpose of securing a partnership debt, and that the title was taken in the individual names of the partners,…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Sterrett,
In 1867, William McCutcheon, the plaintiff, and George E. Smith, the defendants’ testator, formed an equal copartnership in the name of George P. Smith & Co., which continued until April, 1876, when by mutual consent it was dissolved. One of the outstanding assets of the firm was an overdue account of about $7,000 against Samuel Hare, which the latter was willing but unable to pay. Afterwards, with the view of realizing at least part of this, and other delinquent accounts, the late partners concluded to purchase the “ Hare farm,” the deed for which had…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Swisshelm's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1868
3Cited by7 opinions
- Lind v. WebberNevada Supreme Court · 1913
- Jackson v. HooperNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1909
- Botsford v. Van RiperNevada Supreme Court · 1910
- White v. JouettCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1912
- Stein v. George B. Spearin, Inc.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1936
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.