Robinson v. Taylor & Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the Common Pleas of Armstrong county. Oct. 20. The defendant in error brought an action in the court below, in which he filed a statement of his claim on a promissory note of- the defendants. A reference, and award for the plaintiffs, having been made, the court permitted a declaration on the note to be filed, but withdrew permission to declare on a book-account after an appeal from the award, as having been improvidently granted.
Read the full summary
In error from the Common Pleas of Armstrong county. Oct. 20. The defendant in error brought an action in the court below, in which he filed a statement of his claim on a promissory note of- the defendants. A reference, and award for the plaintiffs, having been made, the court permitted a declaration on the note to be filed, but withdrew permission to declare on a book-account after an appeal from the award, as having been improvidently granted. The defendants dissolved partnership on the 11th November, 1840, when they were indebted to the plaintiff on a book-account. The note in question was…
1Per curiam
It would make .little, difference to the out-going partner, whether the suit were brought against the firm on the promissory note, or on the book-account, for,which it was given. •The difference would be only in the .comparative degree of facility in making out a prima facie case. ’ But the note was given by the liquidating partner in the progress of "winding up the concern; and *244the case therefore falls within the principle of the case of Davis v. Desauque. As to the amendment of the narr., it is enough to bring it within the act of 1806, that the cause of action was exactly the same. The…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Winters v. MowrerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- Wood v. ToddCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1918
- Anglo-American Land Mortgage & Agency Co. v. WoodU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1906