Parker v. Broadbent
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
APPEAL BY DEPENDANTS PROM THE COURT OP COMMON PLEAS NO. 2 OP PHILADELPHIA COUNTY. No. 156 January Term 1890, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 536 December Term 1887, C. P. No. 2. On January 28, 1888, Emily L. L. Parker filed a bill in equity against Samuel W. Broadbent and Robert C. Broadbent averring: That prior to November 14,1884, the defendants were carrying on the business of photography at, 914 Chestnut street, Philadelphia, and on that date the plaintiff purchased from them…
Read the full summary
APPEAL BY DEPENDANTS PROM THE COURT OP COMMON PLEAS NO. 2 OP PHILADELPHIA COUNTY. No. 156 January Term 1890, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 536 December Term 1887, C. P. No. 2. On January 28, 1888, Emily L. L. Parker filed a bill in equity against Samuel W. Broadbent and Robert C. Broadbent averring: That prior to November 14,1884, the defendants were carrying on the business of photography at, 914 Chestnut street, Philadelphia, and on that date the plaintiff purchased from them a third interest in said business, paying therefor the sum of $6,000, with the arrangement that she should have the…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion,
Mr. Justice Sterbett:
We are not satisfied that there is any error, either in the decree complained of, or in the proceedings leading up thereto.
The specifications of error are twenty-nine in number, and one of these embraces the thirty exceptions filed before the learned master. If these specifications were as formidable as they are numerous, it would be impossible to sustain the decree; but an examination of the record, including the account stated by the master, has convinced us that these fifty-nine subjects of complaint are not of sufficient merit, either singly or collectively,…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Froess v. FroessSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
- Moffett v. PeirceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
- Treacy v. PowerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1910