Farrington v. Woodward
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming county: Of May Term 1876, No. 120. Covenant by Thomas B. Farrington against John A. Woodward, to recover damages for a breach of an agreement for dissolution of partnership between the parties. On July 25th 1866, Woodward and Farrington formed a partnership for the purpose of manufacturing water-pipe, &c., at Williams-port.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming county: Of May Term 1876, No. 120. Covenant by Thomas B. Farrington against John A. Woodward, to recover damages for a breach of an agreement for dissolution of partnership between the parties. On July 25th 1866, Woodward and Farrington formed a partnership for the purpose of manufacturing water-pipe, &c., at Williams-port. Soon afterwards, the firm, by Gideon Hurlburt, their foreman, obtained some wooden patterns at Lockport, New York, from one Yan Yoorhis, upon a written agreement signed by Hurlburt as agent for the firm to “ return them…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Woodward
Portions of the deposition of De Lancy Crittenden which were rejected by the court below were admissible, if they did not contradict the record of the suit of Yan Yoorhis against Farrington in the Supreme Court of New York. The importance of the testimony, however, is not apparent. The statement of the witness in answering the third interrogatory, that the suit was commenced by the service of a summons and an order of arrest, and that a defence was interposed and a trial had before a referee, resulting in ajudgment, and his statement in answering the tenth interrogatory, that his registry…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Case v. CushmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1842
3Cited by2 opinions
- Eddyside Co. v. SeibelSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
- Shryock v. BuckmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888