Potts v. Taylor

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Potts v. Taylor

21 A. 443, 140 Pa. 601, 1891 Pa. LEXIS 879

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 9, 1891

DocketNo. 61

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 21 A. 443 (Potts v. Taylor) 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

Potts v. Taylor, 21 A. 443, 140 Pa. 601, 1891 Pa. LEXIS 879 (Pa. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

We think judgment was properly entered upon the verdict. It was not seriously denied that Bast was a member of the firm [604]*604of Jeremiah Taylor & Co. up to October 4, 1884; that no notice of the dissolution of the firm had been given; and that the plaintiffs were holders for value of the note in controversy, before maturity. This would entitle the plaintiffs to recover, unless notice in some way had been brought home to them that Bast was making an improper use of the firm name. No such notice in fact was alleged, but it was contended there was enough on the face of the note, with other circumstances, to put Frederick A. Potts & Co. upon inquiry. The fact that the latter had previously received several bills from the firm, all of which were in the handwriting of Jeremiah Taylor, amounts to little. The fact that the note was drawn to the order of Bast, amounts to less: Haldeman v. Bank, 28 Pa. 440; Moorehead v. Gilmore, 77 Pa. 118. The latter proposition is fully discussed in those cases.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam:

We think judgment was properly entered upon the verdict. It was not seriously denied that Bast was a member of the firm [604]*604of Jeremiah Taylor & Co. up to October 4, 1884; that no notice of the dissolution of the firm had been given; and that the plaintiffs were holders for value of the note in controversy, before maturity. This would entitle the plaintiffs to recover, unless notice in some way had been brought home to them that Bast was making an improper use of the firm name. No such notice in fact was alleged, but it was contended there was enough on the face of the note, with other circumstances, to put Frederick A. Potts & Co. upon inquiry. The fact that the latter had previously received several bills from the firm, all of which were in the handwriting of Jeremiah Taylor, amounts to little. The fact that the note was drawn to the order of Bast, amounts to less: Haldeman v. Bank, 28 Pa. 440; Moorehead v. Gilmore, 77 Pa. 118. The latter proposition is fully discussed in those cases.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A. 443, 140 Pa. 601, 1891 Pa. LEXIS 879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/potts-v-taylor-pa-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack