Galbreath v. Moore
2 Watts 86
Opinion
We have already determined that in a single transaction such as this, there is not a partnership to require the remedy to be by account-render. The parties were joint owners of the bonds, as they would have been had the price paid for them been the original consideration and they the obligees. There were no accounts with third persons to be settled; and one of the joint owners might recover in assumpsit his proportion of the money paid to the other, as so much received to his use.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Galbreath v. Moore, 2 Watts 86 (Pa. 1833).
2 Watts 86 (Galbreath v. Moore) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Commonwealth v. Gartman
3 Pa. D. & C. 329 (Berks County Court of Quarter Sessions, 1922)
Rosenblatt v. Weinman
74 A. 54 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1909)
Welch v. Miller
59 A. 1065 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1904)
Mason v. Sieglitz
22 Colo. 320 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1896)
Marsh v. N. W. Nat. Ins. Co.
16 F. Cas. 815 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1872)
Knerr v. Hoffman
65 Pa. 126 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1870)
Wright v. Cumpsty
41 Pa. 102 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1861)
Hamilton v. Hamilton's Executors
18 Pa. 20 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1851)
M'Fadden v. Erwin
2 Whart. 37 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1836)