Haddock v. Grinnell Manufacturing Corp.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Eiixtor to the Court of.Coinmon Pleas No. 3, of Philadelphia county: Of January Term 1885, Nos. 238, 239, 240, 241, 242 and 243. Six actions of assumpsit, as follows : The Grinnell Manu- facturing Corporation against Henry Vanuxem, W. Moore Wharton, Stanley B. Haddock, and Daniel Haddock, Jr., co-partners, now or late trading as Vanuxem, Wharton & Co., to recover on certain acceptances.
Read the full summary
Eiixtor to the Court of.Coinmon Pleas No. 3, of Philadelphia county: Of January Term 1885, Nos. 238, 239, 240, 241, 242 and 243. Six actions of assumpsit, as follows : The Grinnell Manu- facturing Corporation against Henry Vanuxem, W. Moore Wharton, Stanley B. Haddock, and Daniel Haddock, Jr., co-partners, now or late trading as Vanuxem, Wharton & Co., to recover on certain acceptances. Mary Kieruan, to tlie use of Alexander B. Renshaw, against same, to recover amount of due-bill. Samuel Hutchinson and Emanuel Ogden, trading as Hutchinson & Ogden, against same, to recover on note. II. Miles,…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Paxson
DANIEL HADDOCK, JR., v. GRINNELL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, NO. 238.
SAME v. KIERNAN, TO USE, NO. 239.
SAME v. MILES, TO USE, NO. 241.
SAME v. DEWITT, TO USE, NO. 242.
SAME v. CRIDER, TO USE, NO. 243.
All of the above cases rest upon the same state of facts and are governed by the same principle. They may be considered together. The plaintiff in error was sued as a general partner of the firm of Vanuxem, Wharton & Co. In his affidavit of defence he alleged that he was not a general partner of said firm, but “ was a special or limited partner therein, by virtue *380of articles of agreement between his…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Fourth Street National Bank v. WhitakerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895