Case ID: pa_206/html/0644-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Williams v. Williams.
    
      Partnership — Evidence—Loan.
    In an action for money loaned, the defense that plaintiff was a partner was met by plaintiff’s evidence, that although he had bought an interest in a business of defendant, he had never received such interest, and had revoked the agreement. This presented only a question of fact for the juiy-
    Argued Feb. 16,1908.
    Appeal, No. 203, Jan. T., 1902, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P., Schuylkill Co., March T., 1901, No. 173, on verdict for defendant in case of John J. Williams v. Henry L. Williams.
    Before Mitchell, Dean, Fell, Brown, Mestrezat and Potter, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Assumpsit for money loaned. Before Bechtel, P. J.
    Verdict and judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appealed.
    
      Errors assigned were various instructions.
    
      Q-eorge M. Roads, with him R. H. Roeh, for appellant.
    
      E. D. Smith, Arthur J. Pilgram, and John E. Whalen, for appellee, were not heard.
    May 11, 1903:
   Per Curiam,

Appellant sued as a creditor for money loaned; the defense was that he was a partner. It was not disputed by appellant that he had paid in the money, in pursuance of an agreement for the purchase of an interest in the business, but he claimed that the interest had not in fact been given to him and that he had thereupon rescinded the agreement. This was the whole issue in the case and on it the jury found for defendant. We see no error in the mode of submission and there is nothing else in the case.

Judgment affirmed.