Legal Opinion

Pratt v. Patterson's Executors

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 19, 1886PublishedCited by 18 opinions

Error to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 4, of Philadelphia county : Of July Term, 1885, No. 133. This was an action of assumpsit, brought July 11th, 1870, by Dundas T. Pratt against Lydia Patterson and Frederick Patterson, executors of the last will and testament of George Patterson, deceased, to recover commissions, as a real estate broker, for the sale of real estate of George Patterson by the plaintiff.

Read the full summary

Error to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 4, of Philadelphia county : Of July Term, 1885, No. 133. This was an action of assumpsit, brought July 11th, 1870, by Dundas T. Pratt against Lydia Patterson and Frederick Patterson, executors of the last will and testament of George Patterson, deceased, to recover commissions, as a real estate broker, for the sale of real estate of George Patterson by the plaintiff. Pleas, non assumpsit, actio non accrevit infra sex annos, payment with leave. The following are the facts as thej’ appeared on the trial •before Willson, J.: In 1868 the plaintiff was a…

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Gordon

It is certainly a correct rule of law, as held in Clendenon v. Pancoast, 75 P. S. R., 213, that a real estate broker’s commissions are earned whenever he has procured a buyer who will comply with the'conditions fixed by his principal for the property proposed to be sold. But it is to be understood that, this rule depends not only on the fact that the broker is to be regai’ded as the agent of the seller, but that, as such agent, he acts with the utmost good faith towards his principal, and if he does not so act he is entitled to nothing. In the case in hand, however, were we to consult the…

2Cited by18 opinions

  1. Wilkinson v. McCulloughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
  2. Carter v. OwensSupreme Court of Florida · 1909
  3. Allegheny By-Product Coke Co. v. J. H. Hillman & Sons Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
  4. Mullen v. BowerIndiana Court of Appeals · 1899
  5. Ritch v. RobertsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1919

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API