Wrenshall v. Cook & Schoyer
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the common pleas of Mleghany county. Charles L. Cook and Raphael Schoyer trading in the name of Cook & Schoyer for the use of S. P. Darlington, S. Fahnestock and • George Wallace their assignees against John F. Wrenshall. The following case is stated by agreement of attorneys for the opinion of the court to be considered in the nature of a special verdict, and as such subject to a writ of error.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the common pleas of Mleghany county. Charles L. Cook and Raphael Schoyer trading in the name of Cook & Schoyer for the use of S. P. Darlington, S. Fahnestock and • George Wallace their assignees against John F. Wrenshall. The following case is stated by agreement of attorneys for the opinion of the court to be considered in the nature of a special verdict, and as such subject to a writ of error. This is an action of assumpsit for goods sold and delivered by the legal plaintiffs, Cook & Schoyer, to the defendant for his individual usé, and charged accordingly to his private account in…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Rogers, J.
n Slipper v. Lane, 5 Term Rep. 493, it is decided that a surviving partner maysefoff a debt due to him as such against a demand on him in his own right. So a defendant may set off a debt due by the plaintiff as surviving partner against a demand due to him in his own right. 6 Term Rep. 528. And the reason is, that the surviving partner may consider the debt as his own, and therefore completely within his own control whether to pay his own debt or debts of the partnership. But where the partnership still exists, there is no case where this has…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Commonwealth v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1819
3Cited by3 opinions
- Jack v. KlepserSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
- Snyder v. PharoUnited States Circuit Court · 1885
- Solliday v. BisseySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1849