Wiley v. Brundred
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeals, Nos. 141 and 259, Oct. T., 1893, by defendant, B. F. Brundred, and by plaintiff, John A. Wiley, trustee, from decree of C. P. Venango Co., April T., 1889, No. 4, on bill in equity. Bill in equity for account.
Read the full summary
Appeals, Nos. 141 and 259, Oct. T., 1893, by defendant, B. F. Brundred, and by plaintiff, John A. Wiley, trustee, from decree of C. P. Venango Co., April T., 1889, No. 4, on bill in equity. Bill in equity for account. The bill was originally filed by John A. Wiley against B. F, Brundred, M. Hidings, Wesley Chambers and the Union Refining Co., Ltd., but it was amended to read Marcus Hulings, trustee, for himself and John A. Wiley and Wesley Chambers, against Union Refining Co., Ltd., and B. F. Brundred. The case was referred to Thomas McGough, Esq., as master, from whose report it appeared…
1Opinion of the Court
WILEY, TRUSTEE, V. BRUNDRED ET AL., APPELLANTS,
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Green,
There is but a single question involved in the present contention, and that is whether the defendant is liable to account to the plaintiffs for the sum of $8,000 received from the Pennsylvania Railroad Company. The right of recovery is based upon the proposition that the defendant was guilty of a breach of the good faith which is required between partners. If this charge is true the plaintiffs have a right to recover. If it is not true they have no case. The effect of the assignment to the defendant, through the Union…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Armstrong County v. Plumcreek Township OverseersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Ohaco Sheep Co., Inc. v. Heirs of OhacoCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1986
- Hessan v. Gross, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1971