Bitzer v. Shunk
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the Common Pleas of Dauphin county. Samuel Bitzer and James H. Devor, against Christian Shunk and Joseph Bauman, trading under the firm of Shunk & Bauman. Amicable action entered in the Common Pleas of Dauphin county.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the Common Pleas of Dauphin county. Samuel Bitzer and James H. Devor, against Christian Shunk and Joseph Bauman, trading under the firm of Shunk & Bauman. Amicable action entered in the Common Pleas of Dauphin county. Whereas Joseph Bauman drew his certain promissory note, dated 13th day of July one thousand eight hundred and forty, wherein and whereby he promised to pay to the order of the said Christian Shunk, at the Harrisburg Bank, twelve months after the date thereof, the sum of six hundred and fifty dollars, which said note was endorsed by the said Christian Shunk, and…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Kennedy, J.
We think the court below were right in deciding that the written authority given by Joseph Bauman alone, to enter an amicable action therein, and confess a judgment against himself and his co-partner, Christian Shunk, in favour of the plaintiffs, was not sufficient for that purpose. But we are of opinion, that the court erred in setting the judgment aside as against both on that ground. It was, undoubtedly, a good reason for setting the judgment aside, or vacating it, as against Shunk, but not as against Bauman. And what makes this still…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Gerard v. BasseSupreme Court of the United States · 1784
3Cited by5 opinions
- Elliott v. Holbrook, Carter & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1859
- Davenport Mills Co. v. ChambersIndiana Supreme Court · 1896
- Buchanan v. Scandia Plow Co.Colorado Court of Appeals · 1895
- Buchanan v. Scandia Plow Co.Colorado Court of Appeals · 1895
- Geo. W. McAlpin Co. v. FinsterwaldOhio Supreme Court · 1898