Rowland v. Estes
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 144, Jan. T., 1898, by James C. McFarland, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., June T., 1896, No. 827, on verdict for plaintiffs. Assumpsit against a partnership. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. The court gave binding instructions in favor of the plaintiffs. Verdict and judgment for plaintiffs for $2,063.94. James C. McFarland appealed. JError assigned was the instruction in favor of the plaintiffs.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 144, Jan. T., 1898, by James C. McFarland, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., June T., 1896, No. 827, on verdict for plaintiffs. Assumpsit against a partnership. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. The court gave binding instructions in favor of the plaintiffs. Verdict and judgment for plaintiffs for $2,063.94. James C. McFarland appealed. JError assigned was the instruction in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendant, McFarland, was a dormant partner, and was not liable in this suit: Bank v. Thomas, 47 N. Y. 15; Leslie v. Wiley, 47 N. Y. 648; Phillips v.…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Fell,
This action was brought to recover the price of goods sold to T. W. Estes & Co. At the trial there was no dispute as to the sale or as to the amount due. Only one of the partners defended, and he in his own interest alone, on the ground that he had been a dormant partner and had withdrawn from the partnership before the debt was contracted. The three defendants, Estes, Patterson and McFarland, entered into partnership on January 1, 1890, for three years, under the firm name of T. W. Estes and Company. On January 1, 1893, the partnership was renewed for a further…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Clark v. FletcherSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1881
- Deford & Co. v. ReynoldsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1860
3Cited by2 opinions
- Kiss v. KijakaziDistrict Court, D. Alaska · 2019
- Kremp v. DorseyLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1915