Horbach's Administrators v. Elder
| Decision Date | 15 September 1851 |
| Citation | 18 Pa. 33 |
| Parties | Horbach's Administrators <I>versus</I> Elder. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
This is a case where contribution ought to be enforced. It is so in equity. It is so in law. There can be no doubt but that McCall would be liable to contribute to each and to every partner, as the accident happened through the negligence of his driver. Horbach stands in the attitude of one partner who paid money by compulsion of law, which Elder was equally liable for with himself. Having paid Elder's share, Elder is bound to refund to him. If McCall is ultimately bound to each and every one, Elder has his remedy against him. But as they were all responsible to the public as partners, each became as it were a surety for the other, to make good to a stranger any loss or damage occurring through the negligence of the servant or servants of the company, no matter on what part of the line the accident occurred. Partners may limit their responsibility to the public by giving full and ample notice to the public, so that the contract, whether express or implied, entered into by a stranger with the company, may clearly be inferred to have been entered into on the basis of that limitation. But here there was nothing whatever of such limitation, as the matter affected the public. As to the public, they were clearly jointly liable, and so held out to be.
The only evidence of limited liability as among themselves, is the agreement that each was bound to cover a part of the road with stock, drivers, &c. Very true; but that was their share, and each was so bound to cover his share of the road as that each partner who agreed to become jointly liable with him for loss, negligence, &c., occurring on any part of the road to strangers, should thereby suffer no detriment. As they were all jointly liable to the public, each one became responsible for the other according to their proportion of stock. For if one became irresponsible, the others would have to pay. Even although the damage occurred on the portion of the road covered by the irresponsible partner, each one of the others is equally liable; and if one pays more than his share, the others ought to contribute.
It is not necessary to constitute a partnership that each article...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Royer v. Rasmussen
... ... Dec. 538 (1823); Wooley v. Batte, ... 2 Car. & P. 417 (1826); Horbach v. Elder, 18 ... Pa. 33 (1851); Acheson v. Miller, 2 Ohio St. 203, 59 ... Am. Dec. 663 (1849); Bailey ... ...
-
Dawson v. Contractors Transport Corp.
...joint tortfeasors allowed.) 18 Those allowing contribution among negligent joint tortfeasors in actions at law are: Horbach's Adm'rs v. Elder, 6 Harris 33, 18 Pa. 33 (1851); Acheson v. Miller, 2 Ohio St. 203 (1853); Bailey v. Bussing, 28 Conn. 455 (1859); Armstrong County v. Clarion County,......
-
Myers v. Sinkler, 17569
...'The equitable principle of contribution has long been enforced in this Commonwealth on principles of natural justice. See Horbach's Administrators v. Elder, 18 Pa. 33; Armstrong County v. Clarion County, 66 Pa. 218, 5 Am.Rep. 368; Commonwealth v. American Surety Co. of N. Y., 315 Pa. 428, ......
-
Keitz v. National Paving & Contracting Co.
...D. D obtains judgment against A, which A satisfies. A is entitled to contribution from B.'2 Bailey v. Bussing, 28 Conn. 455; Horbach's Adm'rs v. Elder, 18 Pa. 33; Hobbs v. Hurley, 117 Me. 449, 104 A. 815; Grasberger v. Liebert & Obert, 134 Pa. Super. 78, 4 A.2d 186 (reversed in 335 Pa. 491,......