Kirk v. Hartman & Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to tbe Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny county: No. 8, to October and November Term 1869. In the court below, on the 30th of December 1867, John Kirk brought an action of debt against S. EL Hartman and James M. Bailey, partners as S. H. Iiartman & Co. The plaintiff resided in Chicago.
Read the full summary
Error to tbe Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny county: No. 8, to October and November Term 1869. In the court below, on the 30th of December 1867, John Kirk brought an action of debt against S. EL Hartman and James M. Bailey, partners as S. H. Iiartman & Co. The plaintiff resided in Chicago. He declared on an agreement under seal November 19th 1866 (which he set out totidem verbis), by which it was agreed that he should act as agent or salesman for stock of the Pittsburg and Connellsville Mining and Manufacturing Company, stone-coal and coke, &c.: the defendants to pay his expenses when out…
1Opinion of the Court
*105The opinion of the court was delivered, May 5th 1870, by
Sharswood, J. —
Whether the defendants below, Hartman and Bailey, were general partners in any kind of business did not appear, nor was it material. It would be sufficient to show that they were jointly concerned in the particular transaction in which the plaintiff Kirk was employed as agent or salesman. That was to form a company, to be called The Pittsburg and Connellsville Mining and Manufacturing Company, and to dispose of its stock, as well as to sell stone-coal and coke. That Bailey was a party to this scheme with Hartman can…
2Cited by18 opinions
- Socko, D. v. Mid-Atantic Systems of CPA, Inc. ApltSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
- Hertz Corp. v. HardySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
- Stone v. C. I. T. Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
- Emery v. SteckelSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
- Smith v. ShallcrossSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1949
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.