Wright v. Burbank
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the District Court of Philadelphia: Of July Term 1869, No. 207. This was an action of assumpsit brought by Edward W. Burbank against - James A. Wright, for goods, &c., furnished by the plaintiff to Taylor and Bacon, agents of the defendant in the cultivation of two plantations in Louisiana, known as “ Orange Grove ” and “ Fazende,” which the defendant held by lease.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court of Philadelphia: Of July Term 1869, No. 207. This was an action of assumpsit brought by Edward W. Burbank against - James A. Wright, for goods, &c., furnished by the plaintiff to Taylor and Bacon, agents of the defendant in the cultivation of two plantations in Louisiana, known as “ Orange Grove ” and “ Fazende,” which the defendant held by lease. The bill of particulars filed by the plaintiff exhibited a claim for $6815.85, “ balance due on book account .for goods sold and delivered, money advanced and expended by plaintiff to Taylor and Bacon, agents of the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Sharswood, J.
— The defendant below employed Taylor and Bacon to lease and conduct for him, and others associated with him, one or more cotton plantations in Louisiana. He instructed them to make their purchases for supplies only for cash, and this instruction was communicated to the plaintiff, from whom, however, the agents procured goods on credit. It is not to be questioned, under these circumstances, that the plaintiff thereby is to be considered as having looked to the personal credit of the agents and not to the principal for payment. Their…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Shields v. HitchmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
- Pollock v. Standard Steel Car Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911