Horst v. Roehm
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania
In pursuance of stipulation filed under section 649 of the Revised Statutes, this case was tried by the court without the intervention of a jury. Finding of Facts. On August 25, 1893, the firm of Horst Bros., composed of Paul R. G. Horst, E. Clemens Horst, and Louis A. Horst, the legal plaintiffs, entered into four written contracts with John Koehm, the defendant, of which the following are copies: “Hop Contract.
Read the full summary
In pursuance of stipulation filed under section 649 of the Revised Statutes, this case was tried by the court without the intervention of a jury. Finding of Facts. On August 25, 1893, the firm of Horst Bros., composed of Paul R. G. Horst, E. Clemens Horst, and Louis A. Horst, the legal plaintiffs, entered into four written contracts with John Koehm, the defendant, of which the following are copies: “Hop Contract. “Memorandum of agreement made and entered into by and between Horst Bros., doing business in the city of New York, parties of the first part, and John Roehm, party of the second…
1Opinion of the Court
DALLAS, Circuit Judge.
1. The position taken by the defendant in his letter of June 27, 1896, and again upon the trial, is untenable. His contracts with Horst Bros, were not annulled by the dissolution of that firm, nor by the assignment of one partner’s interest therein to his co-partners. To hold otherwise, it would be necessary to maintain that any dissolution of a commercial partnership, accompanied by a division of its executory contracts, would work their extinguishment, and the statement of such a proposition is, I think, its sufficient refutation. Of course, the other contracting party…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Norrington v. WrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Arkansas Valley Smelting Co. v. Belden Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Anvil Mining Co. v. HumbleSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Dingley v. OlerSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Delaware County Commissioners v. Diebold Safe & Lock Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1890
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- In re WrightCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1907
- Grand Forks Lumber Co. v. McClure Logging Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
- River Spinning Co. v. Atlantic MillsU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island · 1907
- Hattiesburg Lumber Co. v. HerrickCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1914
- McNeff v. White Eagle Brewing Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1938
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.