Porter v. Beacon Construction Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Porter v. Beacon Construction Co.

26 A. 216, 154 Pa. 8, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 829

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 27, 1893

DocketAppeal, No. 87

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A. 216 (Porter v. Beacon Construction Co.) 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

Porter v. Beacon Construction Co., 26 A. 216, 154 Pa. 8, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 829 (Pa. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Williams,

The facts in this case are in all material respects identical with those in Hetfield v. Addicks, in which an opinion has just been filed. This action however was against the principal and not against its representative, and the reason on which the demurrer was sustained in that case does not exist in this. The contract however negotiated was the contract of the company. The company has adopted and ratified it,-if that'was necessary, by receiving the amount of the plaintiff’s subscription, and delivering to him the securities which he purchased from it. There is no room for a defence therefore upon the ground that the sale was the act of one manager only. The learned judge was clearly right in overruling the demurrer, and the judgment in favor of the plaintiff whether it be regarded as a judgment on the demurrer or a judgment for want of a plea is affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Williams,

The facts in this case are in all material respects identical with those in Hetfield v. Addicks, in which an opinion has just been filed. This action however was against the principal and not against its representative, and the reason on which the demurrer was sustained in that case does not exist in this. The contract however negotiated was the contract of the company. The company has adopted and ratified it,-if that'was necessary, by receiving the amount of the plaintiff’s subscription, and delivering to him the securities which he purchased from it. There is no room for a defence therefore upon the ground that the sale was the act of one manager only. The learned judge was clearly right in overruling the demurrer, and the judgment in favor of the plaintiff whether it be regarded as a judgment on the demurrer or a judgment for want of a plea is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A. 216, 154 Pa. 8, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 829, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/porter-v-beacon-construction-co-pa-1893.