Case ID: pa-super_84/html/0220-01.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

Kline, Appellant, v. Caplan.
    
      Partnership — Dissolution—Terms of — Issue of fact — Case for jury.
    
    In an action of assumpsit on a judgment note, given in connection with the dissolution of a partnership, the case is for the jury and a verdict for the plaintiff will be sustained, where the issue is one of fact as to the terms of the dissolution agreement, and the case was submitted in a charge which was free from error.
    Argued October 17, 1924.
    Appeal, No. 116, Oct. T., 1924, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., June T., 1921, No. 4507, on verdict for the plaintiff in the case of J. Alex Kline v. Samuel Caplan.
    Before Oready, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Assumpsit on judgment note. Before Finletter, J.
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
    
      Verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $140 and judgment thereon. Plaintiff appealed.
    
      Errors assigned were various rulings on evidence and refusal to grant a new trial.
    
      Edwin Fischer, and with him Abraham M. Rose and George Wentworth Carr, for appellant.
    
      Abe J. Goldin, and with him Maurice J. Speiser, for appellee.
    December 13, 1924:
   Per Curiam,

These parties conducted a business together for a certain time, each one contributing what he pleased. The partnership agreement was verbal, and the terms of the dissolution agreement are disputed. The jury was instructed, “the real question for you to settle is, as to what were the terms of the dissolution agreement? If you adopt Capian’s statement Kline would be entitled to a verdict of $118.75, and if you adopt Kline’s theory of the case, he would be entitled to a verdict of $400 with interest.” The jury rendered a verdict in plaintiff’s favor for $140. On the hearing of a motion for a new trial, the disputed questions were again reviewed by the trial judge.

After a careful examination of the charge of the court and its opinion in refusing to grant a new trial, we are satisfied that no reversible error was committed.

The judgment is affirmed.