Miller v. Bartlet
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR. The plaintiff in error, John Miller, who survived Jibraham Van Beuren, late partners under the firm of Miller and Van Beuren, was also plaintiff below, and instituted this action in the District Court for the city and county of Philadelphia, against the defendants below and defendants in error, John Bartlet and John Harding, jr. It was tried by jury, on the general issue, and a special verdict found, on which the court below rendered judgment for the defendants,…
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. The plaintiff in error, John Miller, who survived Jibraham Van Beuren, late partners under the firm of Miller and Van Beuren, was also plaintiff below, and instituted this action in the District Court for the city and county of Philadelphia, against the defendants below and defendants in error, John Bartlet and John Harding, jr. It was tried by jury, on the general issue, and a special verdict found, on which the court below rendered judgment for the defendants, and the judgment and proceedings were removed to this court by writ of error. ■ The special verdict found that John…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Gibson, J.
Where the acts of the parties bring them within any rule of law by which the relation of partnership is produced, it is of no importance that a contract of partnership was not intended. The rule which declares that all who participate in the profits shall be held liable as partners, is founded in public policy, and it is particularly strange that it should have been relaxed in cases like the present. How a commission on profits can be distinguished from an interest in the profits, as such, I am at a loss to comprehend. The profits cannot be…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Loomis v. MarshallSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1837