Ege v. Kyle
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the common pleas of Cumberland county. The style of this action was, Adam B. Kyle, trading in the name of Dinsmore and Kyle, indorsees of William Barber and Sampson Mullen, trading in the name of Barber and Mullen, against George Ege et al. Statement filed setting out the note, its date, amount and time of payment; also stating the transfer by indorsement as follows, viz.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the common pleas of Cumberland county. The style of this action was, Adam B. Kyle, trading in the name of Dinsmore and Kyle, indorsees of William Barber and Sampson Mullen, trading in the name of Barber and Mullen, against George Ege et al. Statement filed setting out the note, its date, amount and time of payment; also stating the transfer by indorsement as follows, viz. “Which said note was indorsed by the said William Barber and Sampson Mullen, on the 3d of January 1832, and thereby made payable to Adam Kyle, trading in the name of Dinsmore and Kyle, the plaintiff;” and also…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Sergeant, J.
When a suit is brought by several plaintiffs as partners, on a negotiable note indorsed in blank, they are not bound to give evidence of the partnership, because possession constitutes title, and confers a right of action on such as may agree to sue. 3 Campb. 239 ; 1 Stark. 446 ; Chitt. on Bills 394. But when the note is payable or indorsed specially to a firm, the contract is with them only, and it has often been ruled, that in an action by such payees or indorsees, strict evidence must be given that the firm consists of . the persons who…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Porter v. CressonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1823
3Cited by3 opinions
- President & Directors of the Firemen's Insurance v. FlossCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1887
- Dunning v. HellerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1883
- Smith v. ShippeySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897