Tilge v. Brooks
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR TO THE COURT OE COMMON PLEAS NO. 4 OE PHILADELPHIA COUNTY. No. 10 January Term 1889, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 328 December Term 1883, C. P. No. 4. On July 17, 1884, J. H. Tilge and Jesse A. Tilge, trading as Henry Tilge & Co., brought assumpsit against “ Matthew Brooks, copartner of W. Howard Brooks and A. May Stevenson, trading under the firm name of W. Howard Brooks & Stevenson,” to recover upon promissory notes and a book account for goods sold and delivered to…
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE COURT OE COMMON PLEAS NO. 4 OE PHILADELPHIA COUNTY. No. 10 January Term 1889, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 328 December Term 1883, C. P. No. 4. On July 17, 1884, J. H. Tilge and Jesse A. Tilge, trading as Henry Tilge & Co., brought assumpsit against “ Matthew Brooks, copartner of W. Howard Brooks and A. May Stevenson, trading under the firm name of W. Howard Brooks & Stevenson,” to recover upon promissory notes and a book account for goods sold and delivered to said firm in the year 1881. On July 15, 1884, the defendant filed an affidavit denying that he was a partner in said firm…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion,
Mu. Chief Justice Paxson:
The defendant below, Matthew Brooks, was sued as a co-partner with W. Howard Brooks and A. May Stevenson, for a debt admittedly due by the firm of W. Howard Brooks & Stevenson.' The grounds upon which this claim rested are these: Matthew Brooks had intended and attempted to form a partnership with William H. Brooks and A. May Stevenson in 1871, as a special partner. This special partnership was in fact a renewal of one made in 1866. The renewed partnership expired in 1876, when Matthew Brooks retired from the firm. The sales, for which it is sought to make him…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Andrews v. SchottSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1848