Ellison v. Hosie
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 135, July T., 1891, by defendants, James P. Hosie and John H. Hosie, from judgment of G. P. No. 4, Phila. Go., Dec. T., 1889, No. 348, on report of referee. Assumpsit to recover compensation for services rendered in purchasing land.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 135, July T., 1891, by defendants, James P. Hosie and John H. Hosie, from judgment of G. P. No. 4, Phila. Go., Dec. T., 1889, No. 348, on report of referee. Assumpsit to recover compensation for services rendered in purchasing land. The plaintiff by his statement in substance alleged that he was employed by the defendants to purchase for them certain interests in coal lands by an authority in writing, September 5, 1889, that pursuant to his employment he bought the one sixth interest in the tract of coal land mentioned, for eight hundred and fifty dollars an acre from D. T. Pratt,…
1Opinion of the Court
Pee Cueiam,
The only specifications of error were that the court below erred in not setting aside the report of the referee upon two questions of fact. One of those questions was, whether the plaintiff was an agent invested with discretion, or a mere messenger. The other was, whether the plaintiff did not accept the check of $25 in payment for his services. There wa,s evidence upon both these questions sufficient to submit to a jury, and, under such circumstances, we do not see our way clear to set aside the findings of the referee, approved as they are by the court below. This court is not…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Thompson v. PrettymanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Game Commission v. Thomas E. Proctor Heirs TrustDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2020