Tindel v. Park
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 221, Jan. T., 1893, by defendant, James H. Park et al., from decree of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1890, No. 601, on bill in equity in favor of plaintiff, Adam Tin del. Bill in equity for an account and receiver. The bill also asked for an injunction to restrain the use of the word “ imperial ” unless said trade mark and good will be accounted for by defendants as part of the assets.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 221, Jan. T., 1893, by defendant, James H. Park et al., from decree of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1890, No. 601, on bill in equity in favor of plaintiff, Adam Tin del. Bill in equity for an account and receiver. The bill also asked for an injunction to restrain the use of the word “ imperial ” unless said trade mark and good will be accounted for by defendants as part of the assets. There was no specific finding or exception upon this point or appraisement or allowance for good will, etc. The facts of the case appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. The master, Carroll…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Dean,
The bill of plaintiff in this case sets out that he and defendants on the 17th of July, 1885, formed a partnership under act of 2d of June, 1874, authorizing the formation of “ Limited Partnerships.” The purpose of the partnership was the manufacture of steel. The business was to be located in Philadelphia. The amount of capital was $25,000, and each of the three partners was to contribute one third. The duration of the partnership was to be five years; at the expiration of the term the partners voluntarily, without written agreement, continued the business six…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Leventhal v. Atlantic Rainbow Painting Co., Ltd.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1961
- McKean v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1929
- Shufflebottom v. Penn Iron Co., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lancaster County1922