Bennett v. Marshall
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
IN this case Whitnam R. Bennett was plaintiff, and “ William G. Marshal], and E. T. Shaw, now or late copartners in trade under the firm of Marshall & Co.” were defendants. It was an amicable action in case, to September term, 1840, No. 819, entered by agreement, dated and filed October 1st, and judgment was entered in favour of plaintiff for S372.70 by confession. The amicable action and confession of judgment was signed by William G. Marshall only.
Read the full summary
IN this case Whitnam R. Bennett was plaintiff, and “ William G. Marshal], and E. T. Shaw, now or late copartners in trade under the firm of Marshall & Co.” were defendants. It was an amicable action in case, to September term, 1840, No. 819, entered by agreement, dated and filed October 1st, and judgment was entered in favour of plaintiff for S372.70 by confession. The amicable action and confession of judgment was signed by William G. Marshall only. The plaintiff filed, at the same time, copies of notes given by the firm of Marshall & Co. before its dissolution. Plaintiff issued a fieri…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.—
After a dissolution of a copartnership, one cannot confess a judgment against all who were partners without the express authority of those not signing the confession, even although for a debt bona fide due by the late copartnership.
Rule absolute.
2Cited by1 opinion
- Eaton v. TaylorMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813