Richardson v. Hogg
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the District Court of Philadelphia. William Richardson and John Lemon were sued in the District Court as partners trading as John Lemon, by William Hogg, Jr., on a promissory note dated March 21st 1860, for $580.79, payable in six months, signed by John Lemon; payable to his own order, and endorsed by him in blank.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court of Philadelphia. William Richardson and John Lemon were sued in the District Court as partners trading as John Lemon, by William Hogg, Jr., on a promissory note dated March 21st 1860, for $580.79, payable in six months, signed by John Lemon; payable to his own order, and endorsed by him in blank. There were two other suits against the same firm, one by Mr. Journey and one by Mr. Hogg, in which the same questions were presented for the decision of the court below, the same errors assigned, and which were argued together in this court. A copy of the plaintiff’s claim…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered,
by Strong, J.
— These cases present but one question, which is, whether the partnership averred in the affidavit of defence was a general or a limited one. This is to be determined by an examination of the articles of copartnership, which are incorporated into the affidavit. No partnership is a limited one under our Act of Assembly, unless it be formed in compliance with the requisitions of the act, and this compliance must be strict: Smith v. Argall, 6 Hill 479; Andrews v. Schott, 10 Barr 47.
In several particulars the partnership formed between…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Rathke v. GriffithWashington Supreme Court · 1950
- Hill, Keiser & Co. v. StetlerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888
- Plasteel Products Corporation v. EisenbergDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1959
- Rathke v. GriffithWashington Supreme Court · 1950