Hartley v. Phillips

47 A. 929, 198 Pa. 9, 1901 Pa. LEXIS 723
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedJanuary 27, 1901
DocketAppeal, No. 62
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 47 A. 929 (Hartley v. Phillips) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hartley v. Phillips, 47 A. 929, 198 Pa. 9, 1901 Pa. LEXIS 723 (Pa. 1901).

Opinion

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Potter,

The proper determination of this case turns upon the relation established between the defendants and E. I. Agnew who signed the lease, upon which this suit is brought. The plaintiff contends that Agnew was only an agent, while the defendants maintain that an active trust existed. The court below took the latter view in deciding upon the facts submitted by. the case stated.

While it may be difficult to define strictly, at all times, the line between a trustee and an agent, yet in this case, we are of the opinion that there was far more than an agency in the relationship between Agnew and the defendants. The judgment and discretion required, were such as to constitute an active, administrative trust; we can see no error in the conclusion that Agnew held the position of a trustee and not that of an agent. We think the learned judge of the court, below rightly disposed of the questions presented for consideration, arid upon his opinion the judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Canadian Radium & Uranium Corp. v. Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America
108 N.E.2d 515 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1952)
David v. Nemerofsky
41 A.2d 838 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1945)
Marshall v. Commissioner
39 B.T.A. 101 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1939)
Marshall Heirs v. Commissioner
39 B.T.A. 101 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1939)
Ottman, Trustees v. Albert Co.
192 A. 897 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1937)
In re Miller's Estate
19 Pa. D. & C. 141 (Lancaster County Orphans' Court, 1932)
Ottman v. Nixon-Nirdlinger
151 A. 879 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1930)
Rothermel v. Nirdlinger
12 Pa. D. & C. 606 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1929)
Andrews v. Votaw
240 Ill. App. 311 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1926)
Hyink v. Low Line Irrigation Co.
205 P. 236 (Montana Supreme Court, 1922)
Patterson v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
81 So. 85 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1919)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
47 A. 929, 198 Pa. 9, 1901 Pa. LEXIS 723, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartley-v-phillips-pa-1901.