Bunting v. Bunting
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 272, Jan. T., 1901, by defendant, from decree of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., .March T., 1896, No. 1210, on bill in equity in case of James A. Bunting, Samuel J. Bunting and Charles A. Bunting, Executors of the Estate of Susanna L. Bunting, Deceased, v. James A. Bunting, John B. ■M. Showed, Appedant, and Mary M. Bunting, and James A. Bunting, Executors of the Estate of J. Ridgway Bunting, Deceased. Bid in equity for a partnership accounting.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 272, Jan. T., 1901, by defendant, from decree of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., .March T., 1896, No. 1210, on bill in equity in case of James A. Bunting, Samuel J. Bunting and Charles A. Bunting, Executors of the Estate of Susanna L. Bunting, Deceased, v. James A. Bunting, John B. ■M. Showed, Appedant, and Mary M. Bunting, and James A. Bunting, Executors of the Estate of J. Ridgway Bunting, Deceased. Bid in equity for a partnership accounting. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. Error assigned was the decree of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Brown,
This is a bid by the executors of a special partner, asking for an accounting by the general partners and for a decree that one of them, the appedant, the others being insolvent, pay them such sum as may be found due to them by him. The Act of March 21, 1836, P. L. 1836, section 18, P. L. 143, provides: “ The general partners shad be liable to account to each other and to the special partners for the management of their concern, both in law and equity, as other partners now are by law.”» For *29the purpose of accounting, these partners may, therefore, be regarded as…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Raiguel's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1876
3Cited by2 opinions
- Erben v. HestonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
- Balsewicz v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RailroadIllinois Supreme Court · 1909