Wilson v. Keller
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 288,. Jan. T., 1899, by-defendant, from decree of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1896, No. 818, on bill in equity. Bill in equity for an account. From the record it appeared that plaintiff and defendant had been partners. About a year after the partnership had been started, it was dissolved, and the defendant liquidated the business.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 288,. Jan. T., 1899, by-defendant, from decree of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1896, No. 818, on bill in equity. Bill in equity for an account. From the record it appeared that plaintiff and defendant had been partners. About a year after the partnership had been started, it was dissolved, and the defendant liquidated the business. Defendant refused to state an account to plaintiff alleging as a ground for his refusal various acts and fraudulent representations by the plaintiff which had injured him. The case was referred to Horace L. Henderson, Esq., as referee, who reported…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Mitchell,
The appellant in printing his paper-book has omitted part of the evidence which was before the referee and the court below. This was in clear disregard of the rules of court. Appellant *100did not consider the omitted portions material, and they may not be so, but among them is part of the cross-examination of the appellant himself. Appellee objects to this omission and the court is without the means of knowing whether the omitted testimony is material or not.
There are no doubt many cases where the bulk of the paper-books can be substantially reduced, to the…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Comstock v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
- Hartman v. CohnSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
- Frazier v. MansfieldSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
- Vercesi v. PetriSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
- Valley Smokeless Coal Co. v. Manufacturers' Water Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.