Babcock v. Stewart
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Warren county: of January Term 1868, No. 233. This was an action of' assumpsit, brought February 22d 1867, by Daniel Stewart against W. P. Shaw, Irvine Eddy, James McGee, Henri Hall, Barber Babcock and J. R. Robertson, who survived Sherman Garfield, doing business as Babcock, Hall & Co. In the early part of 1865, Shaw and Hall purchased an interest in an oil lease; shortly afterwards Eddy and McGee became jointly interested with them,…
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Warren county: of January Term 1868, No. 233. This was an action of' assumpsit, brought February 22d 1867, by Daniel Stewart against W. P. Shaw, Irvine Eddy, James McGee, Henri Hall, Barber Babcock and J. R. Robertson, who survived Sherman Garfield, doing business as Babcock, Hall & Co. In the early part of 1865, Shaw and Hall purchased an interest in an oil lease; shortly afterwards Eddy and McGee became jointly interested with them, and they all agreed with Babcock to oversee the business, he to have a joint interest in consideration of taking charge of…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered, March 30th 1868, by
Sharswood, J.
Nothing is better settled than that an incom*181ing partner is not liable on the contracts and engagements of the .firm entered into before he became a member of it: Collyer on Partnership, § 520. The plaintiff in error was therefore entitled to have his second point affirmed. The court below did affirm it, but accompanied the affirmance with an explanation, which entirely destroyed its effect. They said: “ Babcock could not bind one who was not a joint owner when the plaintiff began work or after-wards, but he could bind…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Feigley v. SponebergerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1843
3Cited by2 opinions
- Citizens Bank of Massachusetts v. Parham-Woodman Medical AssociatesDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 1995
- Ash v. WernerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1899