Black v. Pentony
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 168, Oct. T., 1905, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 5, Phila. Co., June T., 1903, No. 2951, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Robert Black v. Joseph Pentony and Patrick McCabe, trading as Pentony & McCabe. Assumpsit for commissions. Before Davis, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 168, Oct. T., 1905, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 5, Phila. Co., June T., 1903, No. 2951, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Robert Black v. Joseph Pentony and Patrick McCabe, trading as Pentony & McCabe. Assumpsit for commissions. Before Davis, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. The defendant presented the following points: 2. If you believe that Kernan offered to pay $25,000 cash for defendants’ license and business before defendants had withdrawn their offer to sell at that figure, then the plaintiff can recover only nominal damages,…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Orlady, J.,
The plaintiff is a salesman for a firm of wholesale liquor dealers, and was promised by the defendants, who are licensed retail liquor dealers, that they would pay him #1,000 if he *40would procure a purchaser of their license and business at the sum of $25,000. The plaintiff produced John J. Kernan, who expressed a willingness to pay the price exacted, when a controversy arose as to the terms and manner of payment; the defendants then notified the plaintiff and Kernan that the sale or deal was off, and refused to consider the proposition any further. This suit was brought…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Vincent v. Woodland Oil Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- Cronin v. SharpSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
- Kelly v. MarshallSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
3Cited by2 opinions
- S. V. Thompson Co. v. GoldmanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
- Miller v. ShimerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1923