Denithorne v. Hook
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 3, of Berks county: Of January Term, 1885, No. 372. Appeal by Richard Denithorne and James Denithorne, against whom the action was brought as Denithorne & Brother’, from a judgment of a Justice of the Peace in favor of Geoi’ge W. Hook & Brother. Plea, noxx assumpsit, payment with leave, &e. The defendants filed an affidavit denying the partnership, and this was the only question contested.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 3, of Berks county: Of January Term, 1885, No. 372. Appeal by Richard Denithorne and James Denithorne, against whom the action was brought as Denithorne & Brother’, from a judgment of a Justice of the Peace in favor of Geoi’ge W. Hook & Brother. Plea, noxx assumpsit, payment with leave, &e. The defendants filed an affidavit denying the partnership, and this was the only question contested. On the trial of the case before Sassaman, J., the following facts appeared: In 1883 the Brooke Don Company invited proposals for the constructioxx of a storage…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Paxson
The only question contested in the court below was whether a partnership existed between the defendants Richard Denithorne and James Denithorne. The plaintiffs sued them as partners trading as Denithorne & Brother, and to sustain the issue on their part offered in evidence, under objection, an agreement in writing between the E. & G. Brooke Iron Company of the one part and Denithorne Brothers of the other part, for the construction of a certain storage reservoir. This agreement was signed by Richard Denithorne and James Denithorne. This paper was offered as evidence of the partnership, to be…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Wright v. PowellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1845
3Cited by3 opinions
- O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. v. TaleghaniDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1981
- Brown v. GrantSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1888
- Thompson v. PiotSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1913