Fourth Street National Bank v. Whitaker
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 121, July T., 1894, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 2, Philadelphia County, March T., 1894, No. 644, making absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Assumpsit on a promissory note given by a limited partnership, formed under the act of March 21, 1836, P. L. 143. Before Jenkins, J. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 121, July T., 1894, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 2, Philadelphia County, March T., 1894, No. 644, making absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Assumpsit on a promissory note given by a limited partnership, formed under the act of March 21, 1836, P. L. 143. Before Jenkins, J. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. Error assigned was order making absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Dean,
On the 31st of December, 1891, Granville B. Haines, Richard Wood, Samuel B. Brown, Richard W. Bacon and William Whitaker, of Philadelphia, by the name of Haines & Company, formed a limited partnership, under the act of 1836, for carrying on a wholesale and retail dry goods business ; the term of the partnership was one year; Richard W. Bacon and William Whitaker were special partners, the others general; the special *300contribution of capital by each of the special partners, Bacon and Whitaker, was $100,000; $50,000 each in cash, and a like sum in merchandise, their…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Vanhorn v. CorcoranSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
- Andrews v. SchottSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1848
- Haddock v. Grinnell Manufacturing Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1885