Hall v. Logan
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the District Court of Allegheny county. This was an action of assumpsit by Joseph Logan, for the use of John Watt, against Stephenson Hall and Joseph Logan, late copartners under the firm of Hall & Logan, on three non-negotiable notes, amounting to $490, made by the firm of Hall & Logan in favour of Joseph Logan, one of the firm, and assigned to John Watt, the equitable plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court of Allegheny county. This was an action of assumpsit by Joseph Logan, for the use of John Watt, against Stephenson Hall and Joseph Logan, late copartners under the firm of Hall & Logan, on three non-negotiable notes, amounting to $490, made by the firm of Hall & Logan in favour of Joseph Logan, one of the firm, and assigned to John Watt, the equitable plaintiff. On the trial, the court reserved the point, whether the action was maintainable; and the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for $589.95, subject to the opinion of the court upon the point reserved. And…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Thompson, J.
In this case, the legal plaintiff was also one of the defendants. At common law, such a suit could not be sustained. *332No one can, in the same action, be both plaintiff and defendant: 2 Bos. & Pull. 120; 2 Marsh. 319; 6 Taunt. 597 ; s. c. 1 Mast 27; 1 Roll. 176.
In McFadden v. Hunt, 5 W. & S. 472, it was decided, that such an action derives no aid from the 1st section of the Act of 1838. That act provides for suits by one firm against another, where some of the partners are members of both firms. This was decided in Miller v. Knauff, in the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- M'Fadden v. HuntSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1843
3Cited by2 opinions
- Beaumont v. SharplessSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- Koenig v. Currans Restaurant Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932