Kensington National Bank v. Ware
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 22, Oct. T., 1906, by-defendant, from order of O. P. Pliila. Co., Sept. T., 1905, No. 3,727, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Kensington National Bank v. John H. Ware and Frank P. Conrey, trading as The Export Fruit Cleaning Company. Before Rice, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Morrison, Orlady, Head and Beaver, JJ. Assumpit on a promissory note. The facts appear by the opinion of the Superior Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 22, Oct. T., 1906, by-defendant, from order of O. P. Pliila. Co., Sept. T., 1905, No. 3,727, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Kensington National Bank v. John H. Ware and Frank P. Conrey, trading as The Export Fruit Cleaning Company. Before Rice, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Morrison, Orlady, Head and Beaver, JJ. Assumpit on a promissory note. The facts appear by the opinion of the Superior Court. Error assigned was the order of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Henderson, J.,
The appellant and John H. Ware were members of a trading partnership. As such each is presumed to have had authority to bind the firm within the apparent scope of the business carried on. This authority is implied in the very existence of the partnership. Each member acts as the agent for all in the transaction of the common business. Any limitation of this power which may have been agreed upon by the partners only binds the parties themselves and does not affect others who acquire rights by the exercise of apparent authority unless they know that such limitation has…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Winship v. the Bank of the United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1831
- First National Bank v. Gregg & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1875
- McConeghy v. KirkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1871
- Rice v. JacksonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895