Black v. Snook
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 150, Oct. T., 1902, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Venango Co., Aug. T., 1901, No. 61, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Fred B. Black v. E. W. Snook. Assumpsit to recover for services in selling real estate. Before Lindsey, P. J., specially presiding. At the trial it appeared that plaintiff claimed to recover §2,000 for selling real estate in the city of Franklin for the sum of §77,000, under a special contract.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 150, Oct. T., 1902, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Venango Co., Aug. T., 1901, No. 61, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Fred B. Black v. E. W. Snook. Assumpsit to recover for services in selling real estate. Before Lindsey, P. J., specially presiding. At the trial it appeared that plaintiff claimed to recover §2,000 for selling real estate in the city of Franklin for the sum of §77,000, under a special contract. Plaintiff had no license as a real estate broker. The defendant claimed that he sold the property himself. The court submitted the case to the jury. Verdict and…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
We have examined the several assignments of error and are of opinion that they are without merit. The plaintiff was not a real estate broker in contemplation of the act of assembly requiring him to have a license authorizing him to sell real estate before he could recover for his services in this case. The plaintiff alleged as the basis of his right to recover, a contract whereby the defendant agreed to pay him a certain sum if he would find a purchaser for the defendant’s property, and that he did secure a purchaser. 'The defendant admitted substantially the agree.ment as claimed…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Wender v. LobertiniTennessee Supreme Court · 1924
- Reichardt v. HillCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1916
- Barber v. MillerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
- Woods v. HeronSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- Parish v. Werner, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Berks County1944