Clipping:Dave Eggler's lawsuit

19C Clippings

Clippings in 1853 Clippings in 1854 Clippings in 1855 Clippings in 1856 Clippings in 1857 Clippings in 1858 Clippings in 1859 Clippings in 1860 Clippings in 1861 Clippings in 1862 Clippings in 1863 Clippings in 1864 Clippings in 1865 Clippings in 1866 Clippings in 1867 Clippings in 1868 Clippings in 1869 Clippings in 1870 Clippings in 1871 Clippings in 1872 Clippings in 1873 Clippings in 1874 Clippings in 1875 Clippings in 1876 Clippings in 1877 Clippings in 1878 Clippings in 1879 Clippings in 1880 Clippings in 1881 Clippings in 1882 Clippings in 1883 Clippings in 1884 Clippings in 1885 Clippings in 1886 Clippings in 1887 Clippings in 1888 Clippings in 1889 Clippings in 1890

Add a Clipping

Date	Thursday, February 7, 1878
Text	DavidEggler'ssuitagainstFrankMcBrideandothers,tradingasthePhiladelphiaBaseBallClub,torecover$1400,whichheallegestheyagreedtopayhimforsevenmonth'sservicesasabaseballplayers,wasbeforetheSupremeCourtyesterdayonawritoferror.ThelowercourtrefusedtogivehimjudgmentbecauseFrankMcBride,whosignedtheagreement,wasdeniedtohaveauthoritytorepresenttheclub,andbecausethepartiesheprofessedtorepresentwerenotpartners.Heldunderadvisement.PhiladelphiaInquirerFebruary7,1878[seealsoWeeklyNotesofCasesArguedandDeterminedintheSupremeCourtEgglerv.Fleischmanetal.,copartnersunderthenameandstyleofthePhiladelphiaBaseBallClubarguedintheCourtofCommonPleasDecember1877,casecitation4W.N.C.574,1,287.] [describingEggler:]Anaffidavitofdefencemaysetforthadenialofaperson'sauthoritytodoacertainactasagent,bynecessaryimplication,andbesufficient.ThusanactionwasbroughtuponaspecialtyexecutedbyM.“onbehalfofthepartyofthesecondpart,”--thepartyofthesecondpartbeingthedefendantssuedascopartnersunderthenameofthePhiladelphiaBaseBallClub.TheaffidavitofdefenceallegedthatthedefendantswerefouroftheshareholdersofanorganizationknownasthePhiladelphiaBaseBallClub(thenamesoftheremainingshareholdersweresubsequentlysetforthinasupplementalaffidavit;)thatnoarticlesofcopartnershiphadeverbeenenteredinto;thatnoneeverexistedwherebythedefendnatswereboundtodefraytheexpensesoftheorganization;andthattheyneverenteredintoanyagreementwiththeplaintiff.ThecourtheldthedenialoftheagreementtoamounttoadenialofM.'sauthoritytocontractforthedefendants,anddischargedtheruleforjudgment.[fromG.A.Endlich,TheLawofAffidavitsofDefence,inPennsylvaniap.426FrederickD.Linn&Co.,JerseyCity.1884]
Source	Philadelphia Inquirer
Tags
Warning
Comment	Edit with form to add a comment
Query	Edit with form to add a query
Submitted by	Richard Hershberger
Origin	Initial Hershberger Clippings

---

Comments

<comments voting="Plus" />