Page v. Simpson

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania November 7, 1898

Page v. Simpson, 188 Pa. 393 (Pa. 1898)

41 A. 638; 1898 Pa. LEXIS 622

Dean, Fell, Green, McCollum, Mitchell

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

The manner in which this case was presented to the jury in the charge of the learned court below is worthy of much commendation. It was simple, lucid and comprehensive, and so clearly expressed that the most ordinary mind could easily understand it. The several questions of partnership, fraud in law, and fraud in fact were distinctly and plainly presented and explained to the jury so that they could not fail to comprehend what was said on these subjects. The ruling that there was no partnership was certainly correct, and so also that there was no *411fraud in law. The question of fraud in fact was properly submitted to the jury who found by their verdict that there was no such fraud in the case. The assignments of error are almost exclusively criticisms upon the charge in sections. We cannot sustain any of them. The same is true of the answers to points. In onr judgment they are all correct. Seeing no error in any respect we must affirm the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: S. Davis Page v. William A. Simpson
Cited By: 2 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Partnership — Evidence of partnership. An agreement by two partners to pay fifty cents per thousand feet on timber manufactured by the firm to a third person, in consideration of the latter exercising a sort of supervision over the affairs of the partnership, and giving the partners the benefit of his counsel and advice in the conduct of their business, but not giving him a controlling voice in the direction of the business, nor permitting him to participate in its profits, does not make such third person a partner with the others. An agreement by a partnership to pay a certain sum per thousand feet on timber manufactured by the firm to a third person, in consideration of the latter indorsing the firm’s paper to an amount not exceeding a sum specified, does not make such third person a member of the partnership. Judgment — Confession of judgment — Partnership—Security—Fraud in law — Fraud in fact — Interest. A partnership may give a judgment note to a third person to secure the latter from loss by reason of future indorsements of the firm’s notes, and if the judgment note provides that judgment may be entered upon the insolvency of the firm, the payee may enter judgment for the full amount of the judgment note, issue execution and sell defendant’s real estate, although the notes indorsed by him aggregating the amount of the judgment have not as yet matured, provided they mature and are paid by him before the sheriff makes title to the property sold. Whore the payee of a judgment note, acting honestly and in good faith, and merely to secure and protect himsejf against loss, enters up a judgment note for an amount greater than the amount due him, and he does not claim or receive more than the amount actually due, the mere omission to enter credits on the judgment will not render it fraudulent and void as to other creditors of the maker. The fact that the prothonotary in entering up a judgment note marked “ interest from the date of the note,” although no interest was specified in the note, and the payee’s counsel in his confession of judgment did not claim it, and the payee never received any, will not render the judgment void.