Legal Opinion

Helmig v. Rockwell Manufacturing Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 3, 1955No. Appeal, 181PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Ci-iidsey,

This action in assumpsit was brought by the plaintiff, C. S. Helmig, a steel broker, against the defendant, Rockwell Manufacturing Company, a corporation, to recover a broker’s commission. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $177,- 811.20. The defendant filed motions for judgment non obstante veredicto and a new trial. The court en banc, deeming the evidence insufficient to impose liability on the defendant, granted defendant’s motion for judgment n.o.v. and accordingly refused the motion for new trial. From the judgment…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Kifer v. YoderSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
  2. Bossart v. Erie Coal Mining Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
  3. Speer v. Benedum-Trees Oil Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1913

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Helmig v. Rockwell Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1957
  2. Axilbund v. McAllisterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
  3. Amerofina, Inc. v. U. S. Industries, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  4. Seneca Falls MacHine Company v. Paul C. McBeth and Paul C. McBeth Jr., Individually, and T/a McBeth MacHinery CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1966
  5. R.P. Clarke Personnel, Inc. v. Commonwealth National BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API