Kelly's Appeal
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In tbe matter of the appeal of Neil Kelly from the deeree of the District Court for the city and county of Philadelphia, confirming the auditor’s report in the cases of Lanigan v. McAfee, D. C., fi. fa., March term 1850,192, and Patrick Kelly v. P. Earle and Neil Kelly, D. C., March term 1850, 218. In 1848 and 1849, Neil Kelly and Peter Earle were engaged in several joint adventures to Ohio, &c., for the purchase and sale of cattle.
Read the full summary
In tbe matter of the appeal of Neil Kelly from the deeree of the District Court for the city and county of Philadelphia, confirming the auditor’s report in the cases of Lanigan v. McAfee, D. C., fi. fa., March term 1850,192, and Patrick Kelly v. P. Earle and Neil Kelly, D. C., March term 1850, 218. In 1848 and 1849, Neil Kelly and Peter Earle were engaged in several joint adventures to Ohio, &c., for the purchase and sale of cattle. About the summer or fall of 1849, Michael McAfee became connected with them in the business. In the spring of 1850, Kelly, Earle, and McAfee returned from Ohio to…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Bell, J.
The facts ascertained by tire auditor show very clearly the existence of a partnership between McAfee, Kelly, and Earle, in prosecuting the two enterprises which gave birth to the present litigation. The horses, when levied in Kelly’s hands and at the moment of sale, were, consequently, partnership property. What then was the effect of the judicial sale, as between the members of the firm and the separate creditors of some of them ?
Had the chattels been sold by virtue of an execution or executions, at the same time in the hands of the sheriff,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Colonial Trust Co. Tr. v. L. D. A. Corp. K. W. MooreSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
- Young v. BradySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1915