Sterling v. Bock
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Hennepin county, against the defendants as partners doing business under the name of “Pence Opera House Company,” for breach of the following written contract, being Exhibit A to the complaint: “This agreement, made this 14th day of August, 1886, between W. E. Sterling, party of the first part, and Pence Opera House Co., party of the second part, witnesseth: That said party of the first part, in consideration of the promises and agreements…
Read the full summary
Action in the district court for Hennepin county, against the defendants as partners doing business under the name of “Pence Opera House Company,” for breach of the following written contract, being Exhibit A to the complaint: “This agreement, made this 14th day of August, 1886, between W. E. Sterling, party of the first part, and Pence Opera House Co., party of the second part, witnesseth: That said party of the first part, in consideration of the promises and agreements hereinafter mentioned, to be kept and performed by said party of the second part, does hereby agree to perform the…
1Opinion of the Court
Mitchell, J.1
There are no merits in this appeal. The evidence showed that the defendants were partners under the style of “The Pence Opera House Company.” The contract, Exhibit A, was within the scope of the partnership business, and hence its execution on behalf of the firm within the authority of any of the partners. It shows on its face that it was intended to be the contract of the firm. It was executed in person by two of the partners, and after its execution it was, with full knowledge of its existence, ratified by all the partners by accepting plaintiff’s services performed under it.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Whitney v. WymanSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Gibson v. WardenSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
3Cited by2 opinions
- National Citizens Bank v. McKinleySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
- Edwards v. DillonIllinois Supreme Court · 1893