Martin v. Baird
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 331, Jan. T., 1896, by plaintiff, from decree of C. P. Crawford Co., May T., 1895, No. 2, dismissing bill in equity. ■ Bill in equity to declare a trust, and for an account. The facts appear by the opinion of Henderson, P. J., which was as follows : FINDINGS OF FACT.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 331, Jan. T., 1896, by plaintiff, from decree of C. P. Crawford Co., May T., 1895, No. 2, dismissing bill in equity. ■ Bill in equity to declare a trust, and for an account. The facts appear by the opinion of Henderson, P. J., which was as follows : FINDINGS OF FACT. On, and for a considerable time prior to January 28, 1895, W. D. Rider, E. Y. Breck and J. H. Martin, the plaintiff, were the owners of a piece of real estate at Cambridgeboro in this county, having thereon a large hotel known as the Riverside hotel; together with the furniture and fixtures, etc., therein, and the…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
After a careful examination and study of the record in this case we are convinced that the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the opinion of the learned court below are correct, and should be sustained. While it is apparent that the parties intended to form a partnership it is manifest that it was a partnership to be formed in the future. It is equally clear that in point of fact the partnership never was formed. The negotiations to that end were never completed and did not .reach to an actual agreement. Without going into details, it is sufficient to say that we…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Millers' Indemnity Underwriters v. PattenCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1922
- Beaver v. SlaneSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
- Proctor v. Sagamore Big Game ClubCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1959
- McCloskey v. McCloskeySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
- Jourdan v. AndrewsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1917
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.