Hart v. Kelley
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia county: Of January Term 1877, No. 49. Assumpsit by H. H. Kelley against A. Hart, Pincus, Faucett, Sauter and Clarence A. Hart, for work and labor alleged to have been done about the defendants’ property, as shown by the copy of book entries filed.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia county: Of January Term 1877, No. 49. Assumpsit by H. H. Kelley against A. Hart, Pincus, Faucett, Sauter and Clarence A. Hart, for work and labor alleged to have been done about the defendants’ property, as shown by the copy of book entries filed. The defendant, 0. A. Hart, filed an affidavit of defence, as follows:— “ That neither he nor any one for him, either individually or in partnership, or jointly with others, obtained from the plaintiff the work and materials charged for in this suit, nor is he indebted to the plaintiff on any account…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Paxson
The rule of law formerly prevailing, that participation in the net profits of a business made a participant liable to third parties as a partner, has been greatly modified in England and this country. Thus, in Dean v. Harris, and Harris v. Butterfield, Law Times Reports, N. S., vol. 33, p. 639, Butterfield, who was a person .of small means, applied to Harris to advance him money for the purpose of developing certain mines. Harris consented to lend Butterfield 2000Z., upon certain terms, viz.: That B. having entered into an agreement to take a lease of the Leycett mines, that the said mines be…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Waverly Nat. Bank v. HallSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
- G. Wessels & Co. v. E. Weiss & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- Hallstead v. ColemanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1891
- Thompson v. ShidelerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1923
- Ash v. WernerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1899