Milliken & Co. v. Gardner

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Milliken & Co. v. Gardner

37 Pa. 456, 1861 Pa. LEXIS 33

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 7, 1861

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 37 Pa. 456 (Milliken & Co. v. Gardner) 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

Milliken & Co. v. Gardner, 37 Pa. 456, 1861 Pa. LEXIS 33 (Pa. 1861).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered, by

Woodward, J.

The very meagre statement of the case does not inform us who the partners of Gardner were, nor how many, but we are told that he was one of a firm — that his firm agreed with Milliken & Co. to build boats for them, and that while the work was going on each one of Gardner’s firm was to draw $2 a day for present use, to be accounted for in final settlement. The due-bill sued on in this case was given to Gardner in pursuance of this arrangement.

The claim of the plaintiff, therefore, was his own individual right to receive so much money from Milliken & Co. It was not the right of his partnership to receive it, but of himself. When received it was to go into the accounts of the two firms, and to be settled in the adjustment of their final accounts, but till paid and received it could not be the subject of such adjustment.

In answer to Gardner’s suit on the due-bill, the defendants offered to show that, in their final settlement with Gardner’s [458]*458firm, two mistakes, amounting together to $162, had been made in favour of Gardner’s firm, and therefore it was claimed Gardner could not recover on his due-bill. Whether the alleged mistakes had occurred or not depended on a resettlement of the two partnership accounts, amounting to several hundred dollars — altogether beyond the jurisdiction of the magistrate. For this reason the learned judge decided on the appeal that the defence was inadmissible.

We think he was right. The set-off offered was itself beyond the statutory jurisdiction of the justice, and as it was disputed, it brought all the accounts of the two firms into controversy— which exceeded still more his jurisdiction. Besides, the suit and the set-off were not in the same rights nor between the same parties. By the original arrangement the $2 a day, of which the due-bill is part, were severed from the partnership rights and made personal to each member of Gardner’s firm. The due-bill was his individual credit and property. The suit was in his name. The mistake in the firm accounts, even if cognisable before the justice, was no defence to his action, and therefore he was very properly permitted to recover.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered, by

Woodward, J.

The very meagre statement of the case does not inform us who the partners of Gardner were, nor how many, but we are told that he was one of a firm — that his firm agreed with Milliken & Co. to build boats for them, and that while the work was going on each one of Gardner’s firm was to draw $2 a day for present use, to be accounted for in final settlement. The due-bill sued on in this case was given to Gardner in pursuance of this arrangement.

The claim of the plaintiff, therefore, was his own individual right to receive so much money from Milliken & Co. It was not the right of his partnership to receive it, but of himself. When received it was to go into the accounts of the two firms, and to be settled in the adjustment of their final accounts, but till paid and received it could not be the subject of such adjustment.

In answer to Gardner’s suit on the due-bill, the defendants offered to show that, in their final settlement with Gardner’s [458]*458firm, two mistakes, amounting together to $162, had been made in favour of Gardner’s firm, and therefore it was claimed Gardner could not recover on his due-bill. Whether the alleged mistakes had occurred or not depended on a resettlement of the two partnership accounts, amounting to several hundred dollars — altogether beyond the jurisdiction of the magistrate. For this reason the learned judge decided on the appeal that the defence was inadmissible.

We think he was right. The set-off offered was itself beyond the statutory jurisdiction of the justice, and as it was disputed, it brought all the accounts of the two firms into controversy— which exceeded still more his jurisdiction. Besides, the suit and the set-off were not in the same rights nor between the same parties. By the original arrangement the $2 a day, of which the due-bill is part, were severed from the partnership rights and made personal to each member of Gardner’s firm. The due-bill was his individual credit and property. The suit was in his name. The mistake in the firm accounts, even if cognisable before the justice, was no defence to his action, and therefore he was very properly permitted to recover.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 Pa. 456, 1861 Pa. LEXIS 33, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/milliken-co-v-gardner-pa-1861.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack