Legal Opinion

Bracht v. Connell

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 27, 1933No. Appeal, 189PublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Kephart,

Appellants, Connell and Laub, and appellee, Bracht, in 1921 associated themselves by parol agreement as general partners under the firm name of Connell, Laub & Bracht, for the purpose of carrying on a road construction business. Between 1922 and 1925, contracts involving more than two million dollars were obtained and completed in Pennsylvania, and much work was done in other places. In the year 1925, contracts involving more than $650,000 were procured in the name of and completed by the partnership.

In the early part of 1925, appellants and appellee began to…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Maynard v. RichardsIllinois Supreme Court · 1897
  2. Condon v. CallahanTennessee Supreme Court · 1905
  3. McElroy v. WhitneyIdaho Supreme Court · 1906
  4. McCollum v. CarlucciSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Weston v. Northampton Personal Care, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
  2. Rosenfeld v. RosenfeldSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1957
  3. Clement v. ClementSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970
  4. Huber v. EtkinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
  5. Weisbrod v. ElyWyoming Supreme Court · 1989

23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API