Hunt v. Kline
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
THIS was an action in which Nathan Y. Hunt was plaintiff, and John Kline, George Kline, and Benjamin Hunt, trading, &c. were defendants, to September term, 1839, No. 886. It was entered by the amicable agreement of Benjamin Hunt, one of the defendants, and there was a confession of judgment by the same defendant, in the name and on behalf of all the defendants.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action in which Nathan Y. Hunt was plaintiff, and John Kline, George Kline, and Benjamin Hunt, trading, &c. were defendants, to September term, 1839, No. 886. It was entered by the amicable agreement of Benjamin Hunt, one of the defendants, and there was a confession of judgment by the same defendant, in the name and on behalf of all the defendants. The other defendants presented affidavits, averring that the judgment was confessed by their copartner without their consent, and in fraud of their rights, that they had a defence upon the merits against plaintiff’s claim, setting them…
1Opinion of the Court
Pee Curiam.—
Of the capacity of one partner to bind another in the ordinary course of their copartnership business, there is no doubt. (See Gow, on Part. 56 to 80.) Even an instrument signed by one partner in the name of the firm, and with a seal affixed to it, is binding on all the partners, if done with the assent of the other partners. (Fitchthorn v. Boyer, 5 Watts 159.) So if assent, expressly given to one partner by the firm to confess a judgment, or if the parol assent or knowledge without dissent to that purpose, is ascertained by a jury, the judgment will bind all The latter, however,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Fichthorn v. BoyerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1836