Myers v. Sprenkle
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 14, March T., 1902, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. York Co., on verdict for plaintiff in case of H. W. Meyers v. Martin B. Sprenkle. Issue to determine the validity of a judgment. Before Bittenger, P. J. From the record it appeared that M. B. Sprenkle, Alexander Diehl, Noah B. Sprenkle and H. W. Myers constituted a partnership engaged in manufacturing candy.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 14, March T., 1902, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. York Co., on verdict for plaintiff in case of H. W. Meyers v. Martin B. Sprenkle. Issue to determine the validity of a judgment. Before Bittenger, P. J. From the record it appeared that M. B. Sprenkle, Alexander Diehl, Noah B. Sprenkle and H. W. Myers constituted a partnership engaged in manufacturing candy. The note upon which judgment was entered was given to Myers for payment of the latter’s interest in the partnership. The circumstances under which the note was given are stated at length in the opinion of the Superior…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Rice, P. J.,
Where a judgment note has been signed with the firm name which does not disclose the individual names of the partners, the plaintiff may file a formal declaration against the partnership by its title, naming the individual members, and judgment may be thus confessed and entered by the prothonotary in this *552form: Miller v. Royal Flint Glass Works, 172 Pa. 70. This was the course pursued in the present case. Its regularity is not called in question by any of the assignments of error. The case cited is authority also for another proposition, which is, that if one partner…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Miller v. Royal Flint Glass WorksSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895