Flanagan v. Duncan
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
No. 49 July Term 1889, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 159 December Term 1888, C. P. No. 2. On December 28, 1888, Stephen Flanagan, surviving James M. Flanagan, partners trading as S. & J. M. Flanagan, brought assumpsit against Jacob M. Duncan and Simon Poey, now or late trading as Duncan & Poey. The sheriff made, a return of service as to Duncan, and nihil habet as to Poey.
Read the full summary
No. 49 July Term 1889, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 159 December Term 1888, C. P. No. 2. On December 28, 1888, Stephen Flanagan, surviving James M. Flanagan, partners trading as S. & J. M. Flanagan, brought assumpsit against Jacob M. Duncan and Simon Poey, now or late trading as Duncan & Poey. The sheriff made, a return of service as to Duncan, and nihil habet as to Poey. On February 21,1889, the plaintiff filed a statement of claim averring in substance that on September 20, 1872, S. & J. M. Flanagan, Duncan & Poey, and others, entered into a written contract for an adventure in the shipment…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion,
Mr. Justice Green:
The liability upon which the judgment in the state of New York was recovered against the plaintiff and the defendant, jointly, grew directly out of the original article of agreement made on September 20, 1872. The plaintiff, the defendant, *380and several others were parties to that agreement, and in it they all agreed that the charter of the steamship Francis Wright was accepted, and was “ for the account and risk of all concerned in the joint venture.” The owners of the Francis Wright brought the action in New York, in 1874, against the plaintiff, the defendant, and…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Trampe v. Wisconsin Telephone Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1934
- Clemens v. Security Peoples Trust Co., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Erie County1981