Samuels v. Luckenbach
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 206, Jan. T., 1902, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 5, Phila Co., Sept. T., 1901, No. 471, on verdict for plaintiff in case of William S. Samuels v. Lewis Luckenbaeh. Assumpsit to recover commissions for the sale of a tugboat. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $2,210. Defendant appealed. Error assigned amongst others was the portion of the charge quoted in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb. Justice Mitchell,
The dealings of the parties were altogether by telegrams and letters. The contract therefore having to be gathered from the writings, its terms and construction were for the court and the defendant’s point to this effect should have been affirmed. But as it does not appear that the construction of the contract was really left to the jury, except negatively by the failure to charge otherwise, the error would not be material if the case was in other respects properly submitted.
A much more important error however was contained in the instructions upon the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Keys v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1871
- Holmes v. Neafie & LevySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
- Mayer v. RhoadsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
3Cited by9 opinions
- Carroll v. Manganese Steel Safe Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1909
- Martin v. WilsonIdaho Supreme Court · 1913
- Lancaster County Farmers National Bank AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
- Zellner v. MurdochSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
- Follansbee EstateSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1947
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.