Lowenstein v. McPeak
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 78, Oct. T., 191Í, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 19.10, No. 5,416, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of David Lowenstein v. William McPeak. Assumpsit to recover' commissions on sale of real estate'. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 78, Oct. T., 191Í, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 19.10, No. 5,416, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of David Lowenstein v. William McPeak. Assumpsit to recover' commissions on sale of real estate'. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. Error assigned was order discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. American Home Saving Bank Co. v. Trust Co., 210 Pa. 320; Restein v. McCadden,…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Orlady, J.,
■ This action was brought to recover a broker’s commission for the sale of a licensed saloon. The court below discharged a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. On October 3,1910, the parties executed the following agreement in writing: “If David Lowenstein furnishes me with a buyer for my saloon on 3rd and Tioga Sts., I agree to pay him a commission of 5 per cent out of the sale price.” Signed William McPeak. The. defendant avers in his affidavit and in addition to the above written agreement there was a verbal understanding between the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Kifer v. YoderSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
- S. V. Thompson Co. v. GoldmanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
- Barber v. MillerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
- Stevenson v. BannanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
3Cited by1 opinion
- Cherry v. WolfSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1965