Legal Opinion
Schultz v. Palmer Welloct Tool Corp.
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Decided February 13, 1953No. Civ. No. 167PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MARSH, District Judge.
Plaintiff brought this action to recover a commission under an exclusive agency contract with the defendant corporation. The individual defendants are the sole stockholders. At the close of the plaintiff’s case, the defendants moved for a directed verdict, setting forth three reasons, as follows:
“[F]irst, that the plaintiff has shown that the commission in this case sought to be recovered, involved inter alia the sale of real estate, and it is admitted that the plaintiff is not and was not a licensed real estate broker under the laws of Pennsylvania.”
“Second, the letter…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Guaranty Trust Co. v. YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Weingast v. Rialto Pastry Shop, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1926
- Verona v. Schenley Farms Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
- Alford v. RaschiatoreSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
- Burns v. Gartzman Et Ux.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Irving B. Gruber v. Owens-Illinois Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1990
- Schultz v. Palmer Welloct Tool Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1953
- Kusche v. Vulcanized Rubber & Plastics Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
- Shannon & Luchs Company, and Warren K. Montouri, Inc. v. Mellon Bank, N.A.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1989