Legal Opinion

Berry v. Eastman Et Ux.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 4, 1944No. Appeal, 73PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

James, J.,

This action in assumpsit was brought by a real estate broker for commissions on the sale of property. The trial judge, sitting without a jury, found for the defendants, and from the refusal of a motion for judgment n. o. v., plaintiff has appealed.

There is no dispute as to the principles of law. The right of a broker to a commission is a matter of contract, express or implied, but whether there was such a contract was a question of fact to be determined by the trial judge.

On appeal the findings of fact and conclusions of law of a judge hearing a case without a jury have…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Meitner v. ScarboroughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  2. Glennon v. OstroffSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
  3. Jones v. B. O.R.R. Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
  4. Herchelroth v. JaffeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1943
  5. Anastasi Bros. v. Pennsylvania Co. for Insurances on Lives & Granting AnnuitiesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Guerra v. GALATICSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1958
  2. United States Gypsum Co. v. Birdsboro Steel Foundry & MacHine Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1947
  3. Lawton v. DeAngeloSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
  4. Hambleton v. Selden Et Ux.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
  5. Beck v. Gold, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1949

1 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