Matthews v. Lilley Coal & Coke Co.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 17, April T., 1916, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Washington Co., May T., 1914, No. 295, on verdict for plaintiff in case of H. H. Matthews v. Lilley Coal & Coke Co. Assumpsit for commissions. Before McIlvaine, P. J. At the trial it appeared that plaintiff claimed to recover under a special contract, commissions on purchases made by him for the defendant, of steel rails, frogs and switches.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 17, April T., 1916, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Washington Co., May T., 1914, No. 295, on verdict for plaintiff in case of H. H. Matthews v. Lilley Coal & Coke Co. Assumpsit for commissions. Before McIlvaine, P. J. At the trial it appeared that plaintiff claimed to recover under a special contract, commissions on purchases made by him for the defendant, of steel rails, frogs and switches. When plaintiff was under cross-examination he was asked this question: “Q[—Mr. Matthews, did you take out a license as a merchandise broker in the year 1913? “By Mr. Williams: This is…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Trexler, J.,
The verdict of the jury settled the fact that the plaintiff was employed' by the defendant to purchase certain articles for it and that he was entitled to the compensation which he claimed for the services performed. There was sufficient evidence to sustain the finding.
The only matter left for our consideration is whether the court erred in excluding certain testimony. The plaintiff was on the stand and had testified in detail as to how he was engaged to buy the articles for the defendant. There was nothing in his testimony to show that he was in business as a…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Field v. SchusterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1904