Gilpin v. Howell
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the District Court of Philadelphia. March 3, 4, and 9. The defendant in error, through an agent who acted without disclosing the agency, employed the defendants below, who were stock-brokers to purchase fifty shares of the Girard Bank stock, which was done, and a loan to pay the purchase-money effected on fifty shares of the Mechanics’ Bank stock, and the stock thus purchased, as collateral security.
Read the full summary
In error from the District Court of Philadelphia. March 3, 4, and 9. The defendant in error, through an agent who acted without disclosing the agency, employed the defendants below, who were stock-brokers to purchase fifty shares of the Girard Bank stock, which was done, and a loan to pay the purchase-money effected on fifty shares of the Mechanics’ Bank stock, and the stock thus purchased, as collateral security. This loan was extended on the agent’s own notes, endorsed by the plaintiff below, and the security of the stock already mentioned; and subsequently, on new notes being given, a bond…
1Opinion of the CourtBell, J.
The first error assigned presents for con sideration the several bills of exception, taken upon the trial, to the decision of the court below, admitting E. Y. Howell as a competent witness for the plaintiff. If the transaction from which this litigation springs, be as it was stated by this witness, then, unquestionably, Clarissa J. Howell, the plaintiff below, had a right to bring suit in her own name. Though there are cases in which it has been held that, generally speaking, a principal may not sue upon a written contract made by an agent in his own name, though the agency be disclosed,…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Post v. AverySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1843
- M'Dowell v. SimpsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1834
- Vischer v. YatesNew York Supreme Court · 1814
- Nourse v. Prime, Ward & SandsNew York Court of Chancery · 1823
- Baird indorsee of M'Donnell v. Cochran & DowlingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1818
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Ætna Life Insurance v. CarrollSupreme Court of Georgia · 1929
- Shermet v. EmbickSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
- London Guarantee & Accident Co. v. Doyle & DoakU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1905
- Albany v. Albany, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1949
- N. E. Henderson & Son, Inc. v. F. H. Smith Co., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1931
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.