MacGeorge v. Chemical Mfg. Co.
Cases that cite this one
19 later published cases cite this decision.
- Tierney v. Bulletin Co. (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas 1958)
- Cuberka v. Pennsylvania Slovak Roman (Pa. Super. Ct. 1937)
- Sporkin v. MacBride (Pa. Super. Ct. 1928)
- Dickinson v. Matheson Motor Car Co. (District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania 1908)
- Pennsylvania Co. v. Houseman (Pa. 1941)
- Gotalkras v. Validzich (Mercer County Court of Common Pleas 1939)
- Fisher v. Globe Brewing Co. (Va. 1938)
- Humphrys v. Republican Central Campaign Committee (Pa. 1936)
- Humphrys v. Rep. C. C. Com. (Pa. 1935)
- Wood v. Industrial H., A. & L. Ins. (Pa. Super. Ct. 1932)
- Sun Co. v. Burruss (Va. 1924)
- Massey v. Bohn (Berks County Court of Common Pleas 1923)
- Altenberg v. Shreve Chair & Lumber Co. (Crawford County Court of Common Pleas 1921)
- White v. Rosenbaum Co. (Pa. Super. Ct. 1919)
- Scouton v. Stony Brook Lumber Co. (Pa. 1918)
- Southern Building & Loan Ass'n v. Pennsylvania Fire Insurance (Pa. Super. Ct. 1903)
- Worthington v. Schuylkill Electric Railway (Pa. Super. Ct. 1899)
- Youngstown Coke Co. v. Andrews Bros. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Ohio 1897)
- Inter-state Mutual Fire Insurance v. O. D. Brownback & Co. (Pa. Super. Ct. 1896)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
We need not discuss the refusal of the court below to set aside the service of the summons. The return of the sheriff shows a good service; if the return is false, that officer is responsible. In this proceeding, it is conclusive upon the defendant. And if there were a defective service, it is cured by the appearance of the defendant, and the filing of an affidavit of defence. It is too late for the company to contend that it is not in court.
We think judgment was properly entered for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence. Granted that the secretary of the company had no authority to indorse the note in suit, yet the record shows that the company received the proceeds. There is a line of cases which hold that a person cannot repudiate the authority of his agent, and yet enjoy the benefit of his act. This case comes direcitly within the reason of the rule.
The position that this action cannot be sustained, because the plaintiff is a member of the limited partnership, is without merit. It is sufficient to say that he was not suing as a partner, but as a creditor, and not for dividends or profits of the business, but for a debt due by the company.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.