Miller v. Royal Flint Glass Works

Citations

• 172 Pa. 70
• 33 A. 350
• 1895 Pa. LEXIS 731

Syllabus

<p>Judgment — Confession of judgment — Partnership—Practice. C. P.</p> <p>The duty of the prothonotary in entering a judgment by confession on a warrant of attorney, under the act of February 21, 1806, is to enter it “against the person or persons who executed the same,” but this does not restrict him to the name or names appearing in full on the face of the warrant.</p> <p>Where a judgment note has been signed with a firm name which does not disclose the individual names of the partners, the plaintiff may file a formal declaration against the partnership by its title, naming the individual members, and judgment may be thus confessed and entered by the prothonotary in this form.</p> <p>Partnership — Powers of partners to sign firm name — Evidence.</p> <p>If one partner sign and seal an instrument in the firm name, with the assent of the other, the latter is as much bound as if he had signed and sealed it himself, and his assent can be proved by any of the usual modes of evidence.</p> <p>If a partner knows and assents to the signing of a judgment note in the firm name by his copartner, he is bound by it; and if he is ignorant of the giving of the note at the time, but he subsequently assents to it, he is also bound.</p> <p>Practice, C. P. — Trial—Jury—Request for instructions.</p> <p>Where the jury request further instructions, and the judge reads a portion of the testimony and gives some further instructions, and the jury state that their question is sufficiently answered, the party losing the verdict has no ground for complaint. If he thought the part of the testimony read was an inadequate response to the jury’s request he should have asked for the reading of such other part as he thought relevant and material.</p>