Tully v. Felton
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 143, Jan. T., 1896, by plaintiff, from decree of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., June T., 1888, No. 296, dismissing bill in equity. Bill in equity for an account. Tbe case was referred to D. Webster Dougherty, Esq., as master.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 143, Jan. T., 1896, by plaintiff, from decree of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., June T., 1888, No. 296, dismissing bill in equity. Bill in equity for an account. Tbe case was referred to D. Webster Dougherty, Esq., as master. The plaintiff’s ground for relief was based upon the following contract: “ This agreement, made the twenty-eighth day of February, Anno Domini one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one (1871), Between John W. Tully, of the City of Philadelphia, in the State of Pennsylvania, of the one part, and Samuel K. Felton, Conrad F. Rau and Edward A. Sibley, trading under…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Gbeen,
By the terms of the agreement between these parties the plaintiff was interested in the transactions of the defendants under the contract, in the manner of a partner. The manufac*355turing was to be done in accordance with instructions to be given by tbe plaintiff, who was the patentee of the processes to be used. The defendants were to be the sole manufacturers of the paints in question. They were to furnish all the capital necessary to carry on the manufacture, and, by necessary implication, the place and means of manufacture. There is no direct provision as to who…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Hurst v. BrennenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
- Stein v. George B. Spearin, Inc.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1936
- Grange v. Penn Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
- Klerlein v. Fred Werner Co., Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
- Herron v. HerronSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.