Holmes v. Neafie & Levy
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 192, Jan. T., 1892, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1889, No. 319, on verdict for plaintiff, Samuel Holmes.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 192, Jan. T., 1892, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1889, No. 319, on verdict for plaintiff, Samuel Holmes. Assumpsit to recover commissions for negotiating a contract for the building by defendants of a steamship for the Puget Sound & Alaska Steamship Co. At the trial, before Pennyracker, J., the evidence was to the following effect: On October 3, 1889, plaintiff sent to defendants the following telegram: “ Can you call Lafayette Hotel before eight o’clock to-night ? Am coming over with purchaser ‘ City of Kingston,’ representing Northern Pacific…
1Opinion of the Court
Pee Cueiam,
We are not convinced that there is anything in either of the specifications of error that requires a reversal of the judgment entered on the verdict in favor of plaintiff. His right to recover depended upon questions of fact which were necessarily for the consideration and determination of the jury. Those questions appear to have been fairly submitted to them under adequate and proper instructions, and the facts, entitling plaintiff to a verdict, must have been found in his favor. Defendants’ points for charge, recited in the 6th to 12th specifications, inclusive, were rightly…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Leadville Mining Co. v. HemphillArizona Supreme Court · 1915
- Lieberman v. ColahanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
- McDonald v. KimmellSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
- Samuels v. LuckenbachSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
- Gibbons v. Monongahela River Consolidated Coal & Coke Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1917
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.