Sober v. Moony
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 69, April T., 1911, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Allegheny County, Jan. T., 1907, No. 861, on verdict for plaintiff in case of D. B. Sober v. E. G. Moony, surviving partner of E. G. Moony and L. P. Seeley, copartners doing business as Central Automobile Company, and Edmund W. Mudge, Executor of the last will and testament-of L. P. Seeley, deceased. Assumpsit to recover commissions on sales under a written agreement.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 69, April T., 1911, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Allegheny County, Jan. T., 1907, No. 861, on verdict for plaintiff in case of D. B. Sober v. E. G. Moony, surviving partner of E. G. Moony and L. P. Seeley, copartners doing business as Central Automobile Company, and Edmund W. Mudge, Executor of the last will and testament-of L. P. Seeley, deceased. Assumpsit to recover commissions on sales under a written agreement. Before Haymaker, J. At the trial it appeared that the agreement was signed on behalf of the Central Automobile Company by E. L. Seeley as agent. When…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Beaver, J.,
This is an appeal by the defendants.
The first, second and third assignments of error, which relate to answers to points, do not show exceptions by the appellants, or their allowance by the court, or the sealing of bills. The appellee specifically excepts to these assignments and insists that they should not be con*96sidered. We regard the exception as well taken. In Rodovinsky v. Knitting Co., 5 Pa. Superior Ct. 636, our late Brother Smith said: “Adequate pleadings are as necessary in the appellate courts as in the courts of first instance. The assignment of errors, when…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Rodovinsky v. Roxford Knitting Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
3Cited by1 opinion
- Burke v. HarkinsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1929