Gates v. Watt
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
EBBOB TO TI-IE COUBT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MCKEAN COUNTV. No. 44 January Term 1889, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 401 May Term 1888, C. P. On April 20, 1888, an action of assumpsit was brought by C. F. Watt and J. B. McElwaine, lately trading as Watt & McElwaine, now to the use of J. B. McElwaine, against Charles Sipler, John J. Ashbaugh, Joseph Gates and Eli Logue, partners, lately trading as Sipler, Ashbaugh & Co. Joseph Gates alone was served, and to the plaintiffs’ narr in the…
Read the full summary
EBBOB TO TI-IE COUBT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MCKEAN COUNTV. No. 44 January Term 1889, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 401 May Term 1888, C. P. On April 20, 1888, an action of assumpsit was brought by C. F. Watt and J. B. McElwaine, lately trading as Watt & McElwaine, now to the use of J. B. McElwaine, against Charles Sipler, John J. Ashbaugh, Joseph Gates and Eli Logue, partners, lately trading as Sipler, Ashbaugh & Co. Joseph Gates alone was served, and to the plaintiffs’ narr in the common counts, to which was attached a copy of a book account for goods sold and delivered, he pleaded, non-assumpsit.…
1Per curiam
The first assignment is not in conformity to the Pules of Court, and will not be considered. See Battles v. Sliney, decided at this term [126 Pa. 460]. The remaining assignments refer to the rulings of the court below. By the defendant’s second point the learned judge was asked to instruct the jury that “ There is no evidence to warrant or justify the jury in finding that at any time prior to the first of February, 1877, or at any other time, the defendants, Ashbaugh, Gates and Logue, were copartners of Sipler, as alleged in plaintiffs’ pleadings.” The court declined to affirm this point.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Battles v. SlineySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
3Cited by1 opinion
- French v. SpencerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1903