Ehrenstrom v. Hess
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 13, Jan. T., 1916, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Lancaster Co., Jan. T., 1916, No. 13, on verdict for defendant in case of Charles H. Ehrenstrom v. A. B. Hess. Assumpsit for commissions as broker. Landis, P. J., filed the following opinion sur plaintiff’s motion for a new trial: The plaintiff was a broker, or, at least, he was acting in that capacity in this transaction, located in the City of Philadelphia.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 13, Jan. T., 1916, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Lancaster Co., Jan. T., 1916, No. 13, on verdict for defendant in case of Charles H. Ehrenstrom v. A. B. Hess. Assumpsit for commissions as broker. Landis, P. J., filed the following opinion sur plaintiff’s motion for a new trial: The plaintiff was a broker, or, at least, he was acting in that capacity in this transaction, located in the City of Philadelphia. The defendant was president of the Lancaster Chemical Company, which is located near Lancaster City. Hess apparently was individually the owner of an acid plant,…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
We find nothing in the assignments of error calling for a retrial of this case, and the judgment is affirmed on the opinion of the learned president judge of the court below discharging plaintiff’s rule for a new trial.
2Cited by6 opinions
- Commonwealth v. SullivanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970
- Leo P. Rich v. G.W. Pifer SonsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
- Coastwise Lumber & Supply Co. v. StitzingerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
- Clark & Son v. Ley, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Crawford County1921
- Commonwealth v. SullivanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.