Fishman v. Berger
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 83, Oct. T., 1915, by defendant, from judgment of O. P. No. 5, Philadelphia Co., Sept. T., 1915, by No. 2375, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Hyman Fishman v. Max Berger, trading as M. Berger & Co. Assumpsit to recover hand money paid on account of an alleged agreement to sell real estate. At the trial it appeared that the owner of a stable placed it in the hands of the defendant as agent to effect a sale.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 83, Oct. T., 1915, by defendant, from judgment of O. P. No. 5, Philadelphia Co., Sept. T., 1915, by No. 2375, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Hyman Fishman v. Max Berger, trading as M. Berger & Co. Assumpsit to recover hand money paid on account of an alleged agreement to sell real estate. At the trial it appeared that the owner of a stable placed it in the hands of the defendant as agent to effect a sale. Plaintiff made an offer of $4,200.00 for the property, and deposited $100.00 with defendant who gave the following receipt: “Philadelphia, Sept. 13, 1913. “Received from H.…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Henderson, J.,
It cannot be seriously contended that the receipt given by the defendant to the plaintiff was in any sense a contract for the sale of the land about which they were negotiating. The defendant had no authority to contract for the owner and did not undertake so to do. This appears from the terms of the receipt as well as from its legal effect. It is also clear that no definite oral arrangement was made between the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant himself testified: “I gave him a receipt *89and it was understood he was to invest $700.00 in cash and I was to arrange…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Lucas v. Bode and HeinzSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1928