James v. Browne
Supreme Court of the United States
This was an action of account-render, brought by one partner against another, and several issues were joined on the pleas, 1st, of ne wnques re-, cerner, and 2d, fully accounted. In the declaration, the plaintiff and defendant were named merchants, and the defendant was charged as a receiver of moneys to the joint benefit of the company, from three persons, and the proof was of a receipt from one of them.
1Opinion of the Court
McKean, Chief Justice.
The necessity of a liberal extension of the action of account-render between joint partners, is apparent, not only from the nature of the case, but from this circumstance also, that the parties would otherwise be destitute of any means to arrive at justice; for the action on the case, though beneficially construed in modern practice, would certainly be inadequate; and we have no court of chancery to interpose an equitable jurisdiction. The action of account has, we know, been almost .j . disused in England for a century *past; but this is owing to the •* greater facility…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Griffith v. WillingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1811
3Cited by6 opinions
- Bredin v. KinglandSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1835
- McFadden v. SalladaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1847
- Newbold v. SimsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1816
- Tutton v. AddamsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1863
- Demmy v. Dougherty, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County1863
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.