McFarlane v. Kipp
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 60, Jan. T., 1903, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. Bradford Co., Sept. T., 1899, No. 238, for defendant non obstante veredicto in case of James McFarlane & Company v. ET. E. Kipp, G. W. Kipp and E. F. Kizer, trading as Hiram Frisbie & Company and G. W. Kipp & Company. Assumpsit against a partnership. Before Niles, P. J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. Error assigned was in entering judgment for the defendants non obstante veredicto.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Brown,
In 1893, Hiram Frisbie and Horace Kipp, trading as Hiram Frisbie & Company, brought suit against James McFarlane & Company in the court of common pleas of Bradford county to December term, 1893, No. 331, to recover damages for an alleged breach of a lumber contract. When the case came to trial there was a verdict rendered on April 17, 1901, in favor of the defendants, under their plea of set-off, for $10,644.76. While that suit was ponding, the appellants, on June 7, 1899. in the same court brought suit against II. E. Kipp (who was the Horace Kipp in the other…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- United States v. AmesSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- Ward v. JohnsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1816
- Mason v. EldredSupreme Court of the United States · 1868
- Sessions v. JohnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Anderson v. LevanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Powers v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Powers v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1991