Butler v. Kemmerer
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 285, Jan. T., 1906, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Carbon Co., Oct. T., 1905, No. 24, on verdict for plaintiff in case of EL A. Butler v. M. S. Kemmerer. Assumpsit on an alleged contract to share profits. Before EIeydt, P. J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. Error assigned among others was in refusing binding instructions for defendant.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Potter,
The inquiry which meets us on the threshold of this case is whether or not the alleged contract between the parties was complete. The element which is lacking is that of price or basis upon which, under the alleged agreement, the profit accruing to the defendant from the business was to be divided. The plaintiff and defendant were in no sense of the word partners. In 1890, H. A. Butler, the plaintiff, became private secretary of M. S. Kemmerer, the defendant, at a yearly salary of $1,500, and continued to act in .that capacity up to the time of the bringing of…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- United Press v. . New York Press Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1900
- State ex rel. Star Publishing Co. v. Associated PressSupreme Court of Missouri · 1901
- Graham v. Graham's ExecutorsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1859
- Walls' AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1886
- Bumpus v. BumpusMichigan Supreme Court · 1884
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- Bridgeport Pipe Engineering Co. v. DeMatteo Construction Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1970
- Portnoy v. BrownSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
- Zvonik v. ZvonikSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
- Spivey v. Saner-Ragley Lumber Co.Texas Commission of Appeals · 1926
- Baker v. BakerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1947
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.