Griffith v. Willing
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
THIS was an action of account render, in which the claration contained three counts, the first charuina: the .defendants as bailiffs, the second as receivers, and the third as bailiffs and receivers.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of account render, in which the claration contained three counts, the first charuina: the .defendants as bailiffs, the second as receivers, and the third as bailiffs and receivers. The pleas were ne unques bailiff or receiver, and fully accounted; and the cause went to trial under an agreement by counsel, that the jury should not only decide the issues, but the amount, if any, due from the defendants. partners in a mercantile ad-\ ne. account etch^ther'by* the common ^common'byn the 27th section which section h,s.be®n earn Pennsyhania. To justify# new trial, the mistake of…
1Opinion of the Court
Tilghman C. J.
On the trial of this cause, the counsel for the defendants contended that the action of account render did not lie. I told the jury, that this would depend on'their opinion of the evidence; that the action did lie, if they should think that the plaintiffs were jointly interested with the defendants in the cargo, which formed the subject of controversy. We are all clearly of opinion, that this direction was right. For if the plaintiffs and defendants were joint partners in the adventure, the action of account render lay at common law; but if they were only tenants in com*320mon of…
2Cited by7 opinions
- James v. BrowneSupreme Court of the United States · 1788
- Joyce v. Charleston Ice Manuf'g Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of South Carolina · 1892
- Lloyd v. ScottU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · 1832
- Tutton v. AddamsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1863
- Coleman v. Coleman, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lebanon County1858
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.