Van Amringe v. Ellmaker
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the District Court of the city and county of Philadelphia. - Dec. 17. 'This was an action on two notes, dated July 1, 1832, at six and seven months respectively, each for $788 90, tried before Stroud, J. The defendant offered in evidence a paper signed by Van Amringe, reciting that he had established himself in business, and had agreed to advance on consignments of coal, for which he was to charge five per cent, commissions, and that Ellmaker had agreed to…
Read the full summary
In error from the District Court of the city and county of Philadelphia. - Dec. 17. 'This was an action on two notes, dated July 1, 1832, at six and seven months respectively, each for $788 90, tried before Stroud, J. The defendant offered in evidence a paper signed by Van Amringe, reciting that he had established himself in business, and had agreed to advance on consignments of coal, for which he was to charge five per cent, commissions, and that Ellmaker had agreed to advance $1000 for the .object of making said advances, and might loan further sums; therefore Van-Amringe, in addition to…
1Opinion of the CourtRogers, J.
We seef|^thin|te'||j the memorandum of the 30th ‘of September, 1840, whip^tfedic^^ji partnership, but.conceding that it does, and that it existed from its date until July, _1830, tli? partnership was dissolved on the 1st of July, 1832, for. on that day a settlement took place, which resulted in the defendant, Van Amringe, giving three notes to the plaintiff, one of which is now the matter in controversy. That one item only is left over for future settlement, will not take the case out of the well-settled principle, that on a final settlement and a balance struck, one partner may maintain an…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Killam v. PrestonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1842
3Cited by2 opinions
- Book v. O'NeilSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Farrell v. YoungSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1904