Poundstone v. Hamburger
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
APPEAL BY DEPENDANT PROM THE COURT OE COMMON PLEAS NO. 2 OE ALLEGHENY COUNTY. No. 226 October Term 1890, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 618 July Term 1887, C. P. No. 2. On June 25, 1887, George W. Poundstone brought assump-sit against “Philip Hamburger, surviving George W. Jones and Philip Hamburger, late partners.” Issue.
Read the full summary
APPEAL BY DEPENDANT PROM THE COURT OE COMMON PLEAS NO. 2 OE ALLEGHENY COUNTY. No. 226 October Term 1890, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 618 July Term 1887, C. P. No. 2. On June 25, 1887, George W. Poundstone brought assump-sit against “Philip Hamburger, surviving George W. Jones and Philip Hamburger, late partners.” Issue. At the trial on February 27, 1890, the plaintiff proved and put in evidence a book account against George W. Jones, deceased, for merchandise sold to Jones, in his lifetime, the account running from March 12, 1881, to July 18, 1882, and showing a balance in favor of the…
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION,
Mu. Justice Sterrett :
In his opinion, on the question of law reserved, the learned judge of the Common Pleas states, in substance, that at the close of plaintiff’s testimony, counsel for the parties agreed *322upon tbe amount for which the verdict in favor of plaintiff was rendered, and also upon the form of the question reserved, to wit:
“ Whether or not, under the agreements between Philip Hamburger and George W. Jones, bearing date September 1, 1881, March 1,1882, and September 26,1883, (marked exhibits 6, 7, and 8, copies of which are herewith filed,) the defendant was, by virtue of…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Styers v. Stirrat & Goetz Investment Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1911
- Scott v. KennedySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
- Napoleon Farmers' Elevator Co. v. DunaheyNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1921