Nock v. Guthrie
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 243, Jan. T., 1912, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Philadelphia Co., March T., 1911, No. 250, on verdict in favor of the plaintiff in case of Elbridge E. Nock, to use of E. Witherden Nock v. D. Clinton Guthrie. Assumpsit to recover commissions for the sale of real property. Before Kinsey, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. From the record it appeared that the following testimony was admitted over the objection of defendant.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 243, Jan. T., 1912, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Philadelphia Co., March T., 1911, No. 250, on verdict in favor of the plaintiff in case of Elbridge E. Nock, to use of E. Witherden Nock v. D. Clinton Guthrie. Assumpsit to recover commissions for the sale of real property. Before Kinsey, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. From the record it appeared that the following testimony was admitted over the objection of defendant. In the re-examination of a witness for the plaintiff: Q. At the time you sat in the drug store and made your agreement…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Potter,
In this case, the plaintiff, a real estate broker, sought to recover compensation for effecting the sale of certain real estate. He alleged that the amount of his compensation was fixed at $3,000 by an oral agreement made prior to the contract of sale of the property, which he negotiated. The defendant denied making an oral agreement for compensation, and contended that the agreement for compensation was conditioned upon the title being passed, and the settlemént actually made. The testimony at the trial was contradictory, but evidence was offered tending to show…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Lieberman v. ColahanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
- Simon v. ReiterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1954