S. V. Thompson Co. v. Goldman
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 102, April T., 1912, by plaintiffs, from order of C. P. Armstrong Co., June T., 1907, No. 204, refusing to take off nonsuit in case of S. Y. Thompson, Harry H. Hunter and C. E. Frankenberry, trading as S. V. Thompson Company, v. D. A. Goldman.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 102, April T., 1912, by plaintiffs, from order of C. P. Armstrong Co., June T., 1907, No. 204, refusing to take off nonsuit in case of S. Y. Thompson, Harry H. Hunter and C. E. Frankenberry, trading as S. V. Thompson Company, v. D. A. Goldman. Assumpsit to recover commissions for the sale of real estate., Before Patton, P. J. At the trial the court entered a compulsory nonsuit which it subsequently refused to take off, Patton, P. J., filing the following opinion: This case was before the Superior Court, and passed upon in 41 Pa. Superior Ct. 209, and it was there held (page 218)…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Head, J.,
The facts out of which this controversy arises were fully stated when the case was formerly here, 41 Pa. Superior Ct. 209. When, as a result of that appeal, the case was retried, the court below entered a compulsory nonsuit. In the opinion filed refusing to take off that nonsuit, the learned trial judge has again fully discussed the testimony as well as the controlling principles of law. We can see nothing of value to be added to that opinion. Having carefully reviewed the entire record, we have all reached the conclusion that the case was properly tried and that the'…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- S. V. Thompson Co. v. GoldmanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
3Cited by5 opinions
- Globerman v. LedererAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1952
- Espalla v. Lyon Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1933
- Kline v. LapidaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1952
- Martin v. GelbachSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
- Arnheim, Inc. v. Sunray Laundry, Inc., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County1950