M'Fadden v. Hunt
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the Common Pleas of Dauphin county. This case is fully stated in the opinion of the court. cited 1 Binn. 191; Col. on Part. 151; 1 Vent. 40; 1 Wash. C. C. ,435; G Serg. 8f Rawle 333; 9 Serg.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the Common Pleas of Dauphin county. This case is fully stated in the opinion of the court. cited 1 Binn. 191; Col. on Part. 151; 1 Vent. 40; 1 Wash. C. C. ,435; G Serg. 8f Rawle 333; 9 Serg. Rawle 241; 1 Hoist. 434; 3 Pick. 420; 15 Mass. 121; 6 Pick. 179 ; 4 Watts Serg. 14; 2 Term Rep. 479 ; 2 Whart. 40. cited Act of 13th October 1840, secs. 18,19, giving chancery powers to settle partnership accounts: 17 Johns. 80; 14 Johns. 318; 1 Wend. 532; 1 .Hall 180; 2 Term Rep. 179; Gow on Part'. 74, 88; 1 Story’s Eq. 15, 30; 7 Watts 300.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Kennedy, J.
This is an action of assumpsit by the plaintiff in error against Wm. B. & T. Hunt, John Dougherty, J. D. Davis and John M’Fadden, (the plaintiff himself), late partners, trading under the firm of the “ Pittsburg and Philadelphia Reliance Transportation Company,” to recover the sunrof $14,265.52, a balance alleged by the plaintiff to be due to him, upon a settlement made with the company on the 23d of February 1839. The plaintiff, for the purpose of maintaining his action, gave in evidence a writing of the following purport: “ We, the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Beaumont v. SharplessSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- Koenig v. Currans Restaurant Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
- Crosby v. TimolatSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
- Hall v. LoganSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1859