Haughey v. Strickler
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the Common Pleas of Montgomery county, where a verdict and judgment were rendered in favour of Jacob Strickler, in an action of assumpsit brought by him against John Haughey, James Steel, James Wells, and William Moore, lately partners, doing business under the name and firm of Haughey, Steel & Co. The plaintiff declared on two promissory notes, signed Haughey, Steel & Co. — one dated February 25th, 1839, for the payment of $350, at 30 days; the other, of the same…
Read the full summary
ERROR to the Common Pleas of Montgomery county, where a verdict and judgment were rendered in favour of Jacob Strickler, in an action of assumpsit brought by him against John Haughey, James Steel, James Wells, and William Moore, lately partners, doing business under the name and firm of Haughey, Steel & Co. The plaintiff declared on two promissory notes, signed Haughey, Steel & Co. — one dated February 25th, 1839, for the payment of $350, at 30 days; the other, of the same date, for $396, at 60 days — and also for goods sold and delivered. The defendants pleaded non assumpsit, and payment…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Sergeant, J.
This suit was brought against Haughey, Steel, Wells and Moore, on two promissory notes, and for goods sold and delivered. The notes were given by Haughey, and signed Haughey, Steel & Co. The plaintiff was bound to prove that the notes signed Haughey, Steel & Co., were the notes of the defendants, or in other words, that Haughey had authority as their partner to bind them, and that it was so intended and understood. The plaintiff accordingly went into evidence of the existence of the partnership of the defendants for the purpose of erecting…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Commonwealth v. JohnstonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- Comstock v. GageIllinois Supreme Court · 1878