Bedilion v. Muehler Bros.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 42, April T., 1920, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. Allegheny County, Oct. T., 1918, No. 568, on verdict for plaintiff in the case of T. P. Bedilion v. William F. Muehler and Robert G. Muehler, partners, trading as Muehler Brothers. Assumpsit for agent’s commissions. Before Brown, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. Verdict for plaintiff for $516.75 and judgment thereon. Defendants appealed.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 42, April T., 1920, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. Allegheny County, Oct. T., 1918, No. 568, on verdict for plaintiff in the case of T. P. Bedilion v. William F. Muehler and Robert G. Muehler, partners, trading as Muehler Brothers. Assumpsit for agent’s commissions. Before Brown, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. Verdict for plaintiff for $516.75 and judgment thereon. Defendants appealed. Error assigned was refusal of defendant’s motion for judgment non obstante veredicto.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Trexler,*J.,
This is a suit to recover commissions claimed to be due on a saleman’s contract for the sale of motor vehicles. *517The -written contract between the parties contains the following clause, “If for any reason the vehicle is sold at a. concession, or any equipment given with same, or other miscellaneous expenses incurred, these expenditures will be charged against the commission due to the party of the second part.” The plaintiff opened negotiations with the American Bridge Company for the sale of a truck for the sum of fifty-two hundred dollars. The verdict of the jury fixes…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Keys v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1871
3Cited by2 opinions
- Newhall v. Victor Box Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
- Hutto v. Snap-On Tools CorporationCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1944