Little v. Bessemer Motor Truck Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 10, Oct. T., 1924, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Butler Co., Dec. T., 1923, No. 11, on verdict for plaintiff, in case of R. C. Little, doing business as the Bessemer Motor Truck Co. of Pittsburgh, v. The Bessemer Motor Truck Co., a corporation. Assumpsit for commissions on sales. Before Briber, P. J. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 10, Oct. T., 1924, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Butler Co., Dec. T., 1923, No. 11, on verdict for plaintiff, in case of R. C. Little, doing business as the Bessemer Motor Truck Co. of Pittsburgh, v. The Bessemer Motor Truck Co., a corporation. Assumpsit for commissions on sales. Before Briber, P. J. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $8,052. Errors assigned were various rulings and instructions, quoting record.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Sadler,
Little, with a partner, was engaged in the automobile business. The firm entered into a verbal contract with a corporation building motor cars at Grove City, Mercer County, by which the privilege of disposing of certain of its products on commission was given. In 1916, a written agreement, — repeating the oral understanding, — was executed with the plaintiff alone, setting forth, in part, that the manufacturer “grants [to Little] the exclusive right to sell Bessemer Motor Trucks in the following described territory: Allegheny County and no other, for one year from…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Garfield v. Peerless Motor Car Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1905
- Commonwealth v. FlemingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
- Sparks v. Reliable Dayton Motor Car Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1911
- Wier v. American Locomotive Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1913
- Perlman & Co. v. Sartorius & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.