Jones v. Farquhar
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jones v. Farquhar, 186 Pa. 386 (Pa. 1898)
40 A. 1134; 1898 Pa. LEXIS 1014
Dean, Fell, McCollum, Mitchell, Pee, Sterrett
Jones v. Farquhar
Opinion of the Court
A careful consideration of the record in this case has not only satisfied us that there is no substantial error in the conclusions reached by the court below, but also that it would serve no useful purpose to consider in detail the several specifications of error on which the appellant relies. We find nothing in either of them that would justify a reversal or modification of the decree. They are all overruled; and, for reasons given by the learned president of the common pleas, the decree is affirmed and the appeal dismissed at appellant’s costs.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Mary E. Jones, Administratix of John A. Jones v. A. P. Farquhar
- Cited By
- 13 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Equity — Accounting— Practice— Master's findings. ■ On a bill in equity for an aeeounfc, it appeared that the plaintiff and defendant had entered into a written agreement by which the defendant was • to manufacture a certain article, and the plaintiff was to contribute his services in perfecting the article and in malting sales of it. The profits were to be divided between the parties. No time was set for the termination of the contract. Defendant testified that subsequently lie stated to plaintiff that he would not continue the agreement unless he was allowed twenty-five per cent for shop expenses. Defendant’s testimony on this point was supported by that of another witness, and it appeared also that he could not continue to manufacture the article profitably unless some allowance was made to him for shop expenses, and that without such allowance, plaintiff’s profits would have been unreasonably large. Plaintiff denied by his own testimony that any such statement had been made by defendant, but he admitted that for two years he had settled on the basis contended for by defendant. He was contradicted by a number of witnesses upon material matters. The master found in favor of the plaintiff. The court below overruled the master’s finding of fact. Held, that the decree of the court should be sustained.