Deford & Co. v. Reynolds
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Common Pleas of Franklin county. These were two actions of assumpsit, the first, by Benjamin Deford and Albert L. Webb, trading under the firm of B. Deford & Go. against Hugh W. Reynolds, as surviving partner of the firm of R. McCulloh & Co.; and the other, by Benjamin Deford and Isaac Deford, trading under the firm of B. Deford & Sons, •against the same defendant, to recover balances alleged to be owing to the plaintiff firms respectively by' R. McCulloh & Co.…
Read the full summary
Error to the Common Pleas of Franklin county. These were two actions of assumpsit, the first, by Benjamin Deford and Albert L. Webb, trading under the firm of B. Deford & Go. against Hugh W. Reynolds, as surviving partner of the firm of R. McCulloh & Co.; and the other, by Benjamin Deford and Isaac Deford, trading under the firm of B. Deford & Sons, •against the same defendant, to recover balances alleged to be owing to the plaintiff firms respectively by' R. McCulloh & Co. The jury were sworn in the first case only, and it was agreed by the counsel of the respective parties, that the matters…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Strong, J.
Sometime in the year 1851, Reynolds, the defendant belowr, entered into partnership with Robert McCulloh, since *332deceased, under the firm name of R. McCulloh & Co. In the same year, the new firm opened an account with the plaintiffs below, who were leather merchants, doing business in the city of Baltimore, and became indebted to them in a considerable sum. On the 7th of April 1853, the firm of R. McCulloh & Co. was dissolved by the mutual consent of the partners, and notice of the dissolution was published in the newspapers of Chambevsburg,'…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Perrine v. JermynSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
- Rowland v. EstesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899