Ash v. Werner
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 20, Oct. T., 1899, by W. Harris Seltzer and Susan S. Seltzer, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., June T., 1898, No. 668, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit. Before Finletter, P. J. It appears from the evidence that plaintiff brought an action against the defendants as alleged copartners, trading as J. E. Werner & Son, and also as Werner & Seltzer.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 20, Oct. T., 1899, by W. Harris Seltzer and Susan S. Seltzer, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., June T., 1898, No. 668, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit. Before Finletter, P. J. It appears from the evidence that plaintiff brought an action against the defendants as alleged copartners, trading as J. E. Werner & Son, and also as Werner & Seltzer. It appears that plaintiff had done hauling for the firm of Werner & Son; that subsequently the firm of Werner & Seltzer was formed and the plaintiff sought to charge the Seltzers, on the ground of an implied assumption by them of…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
William W. Porter, J.,
The parties named as defendants in this case are “ W. Harris Seltzer, Susan S. Seltzer and J. E. Werner, late partners-trading variously under the name of J. E. Werner and Son,, and also under the name of Werner and Seltzer.” From the-evidence it is clear that J. E. Werner was a member of both firms. W. Harris Seltzer and Susan S. Seltzer, on the plaintiff’s own admission, were not members of the firm of J. E. Werner and Son. He testifies: “Q. Mrs. Seltzer or Harris-Seltzer were not members of the firm of J. E. Werner and Son, were they? A. Not that I know of.…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Hart v. KelleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1877
- Babcock v. StewartSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1868
- Bewley v. TamsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1851
- Shoemaker v. KingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1861
3Cited by1 opinion
- Pierce Butler Radiator Corp. v. LuongoDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1949