Powers v. Black
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 225, Oct. T., 1893, by defendants, David P. Black, Milton I. Baird and J. Ledlie Gloninger, partners trading as Black & Baird, and Galen C. Hartman, from decree of G. P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., Sept. T., 1891, No. 407, in favor of plaintiff, Charles L. Powers. Bill in equity for account.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 225, Oct. T., 1893, by defendants, David P. Black, Milton I. Baird and J. Ledlie Gloninger, partners trading as Black & Baird, and Galen C. Hartman, from decree of G. P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., Sept. T., 1891, No. 407, in favor of plaintiff, Charles L. Powers. Bill in equity for account. The case was referred to J. T. Myler, Esq., as master, from whose report it appeared that on April 1, 1890, plaintiff, appellee, by a written application constituted Black & Baird, one of appellants, his agents to sell twenty-three lots of ground, at a minimum price of $2,000 as a whole. Black &…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
Both reports of the learned master, considered with special reference to the exceptions thereto recited in the first twelve, together with the fourteenth to sixteenth specifications inclusive, have satisfied us that neither of said fifteen exceptions should have been sustained, and hence there was no error in overruling them and entering the final decree.
In view of the' established facts, there was no error in decreeing as complained of in the thirteenth specification, “that in the purchase and sale of the complainant’s real estate by Galen C. Hartman, one of the respondents, as…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Craig v. ParsonsNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1916
- Wood AppealSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1950
- Lafferty v. MollSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931