Summary

Samuel Blatchford McGowan v. American Pressed Tan Bark Company…

It is wholly immaterial, if they were in fact partners, or held themselves out to the plaintiff as partners, which is precisely the same thing as if they were partners in fact, by what name they did their business or made this contract,-whether they were known or contracted as 'Theodore J. McGowan & Bliss,' as 'McGowan Pump Company,' or as 'The McGowan Pump Company,' or whether they used any or all of these names indifferently or interchangeably. Now, if they held themselves out to the plaintiff as partners, it is unimportant whether they were a corporation or not in fact.
Source: Wikisource

Samuel Blatchford McGowan v. American Pressed Tan Bark Company…

But the plaintiff has not sued on that contract, nor averred any breach of it in that respect. It has sued for breaches of the guaranty for a good machine, and nothing else. This contract is pleaded by defendants as a defense to a claim of breach, and, so setting it up, the only question is whether it constitutes a defense.' 'The court therefore charges you that its only effect is to reduce the original guaranty for the capacity of the machine in respect to the time for pressing the bale, if you find there was no fraud in procuring it.
Source: Wikisource

Samuel Blatchford McGowan v. American Pressed Tan Bark Company…

The written contract, if the jury find it was made between the plaintiff and the defendants, requires the machinery to be made under it to be constructed in a workman-like manner and of first-class materials, and to be set up aboard of the plaintiff's boat in Cincinnati. The machinery is to have sufficient capacity to do the required work, and is guarantied by the McGowan Pump Company. The contract having thus defined the character of the work, it cannot in that respect be varied by parol evidence, which is admissible only to enable us to properly interpret the contract.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature