Legal Opinion

Fulton v. Central Bank

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 5, 1880PublishedCited by 11 opinions

Error to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 1, of Allegheny county: Of October and November Term 1879, No. 183. Assumpsit by the Central Bank of Pittsburgh against Pulton, Marvin & Co. This was an action by the bank against the defendants, late partners doing business under the firm of Eulton, Marvin & Co., as the makers of two notes, and the endorsers of a third note of which the following are copies, viz.: “$4000. Pittsburgh, June 29th 1875. Pour months after date we promise…

Read the full summary

Error to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 1, of Allegheny county: Of October and November Term 1879, No. 183. Assumpsit by the Central Bank of Pittsburgh against Pulton, Marvin & Co. This was an action by the bank against the defendants, late partners doing business under the firm of Eulton, Marvin & Co., as the makers of two notes, and the endorsers of a third note of which the following are copies, viz.: “$4000. Pittsburgh, June 29th 1875. Pour months after date we promise to pay to the order of Jacob H. Walter four thousand dollars, at the Central Bank, without defalcation, value received.…

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Murcur

It is well-settled that after dissolution, a liquidating partner may bind his late co-partners in borrowing money to pay the debts of the late firm. He may renew an accommodation endorsement, and give notes to liquidate the partnership indebtedness: Dundas v. Gallagher, 4 Barr 205; Robinson v. Taylor, Id. 242; Brown v. Clark, 2 Harris 469; Ward v. Tyler, 2 P. F. Smith 393; Lloyd v. Thomas, 29 Id. 68. The authority to act as a liquidating partner, does not require an express and specific appointment. When one so acts with the knowledge of his late co-partners, their permission may be presumed,…

2Cited by11 opinions

  1. Resurrection Gold Min. Co. v. Fortune Gold Min. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1904
  2. Mine & Smelter Supply Co. v. Parke & Lacy Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1901
  3. Campbell v. FloydSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
  4. Commonwealth v. BellSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
  5. E. Bradford Clarke Co. v. Railroad Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1905

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API