Deckard v. Case
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the common pleas of Pprry county. This was an action of trespass by James H. Case, Daniel Charles, and George Snyder, against John Deckard, and arose out of the following circumstances: Lowe & Mead were partners in the coach and wagon making business, and contracted a number of debts, for some of which judgments were obtained, and executions issued, to an amount about 600 dollars.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the common pleas of Pprry county. This was an action of trespass by James H. Case, Daniel Charles, and George Snyder, against John Deckard, and arose out of the following circumstances: Lowe & Mead were partners in the coach and wagon making business, and contracted a number of debts, for some of which judgments were obtained, and executions issued, to an amount about 600 dollars. The sheriff levied upon their stock in trade, consisting of partly finished carriages and wagons, &c. As soon as the levy was made, and the property in the possession of the sheriff, Mead ran off and left…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Rogers, J.
It is a general principle of the law of partnership, that the partners are bound by what is done by each other in the course of the partnership business. They are considered as virtually present at and sanctioning the contracts they singly enter into in the course of trade; and each is vested with authority to act at the same time as principal, and as the authorised agent of his co-partners. Each partner reposes confidence in the other, and by the act of entering into the partnership, constitutes him his general agent as to all the…
2Cited by23 opinions
- Drumright v. PhilpotSupreme Court of Georgia · 1854
- Hennessy v. Western BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1843
- Lancaster v. Knickerbocker Ice Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Rumery v. McCullochWisconsin Supreme Court · 1882
- Schmertz v. ShreeveSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1870
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.