Legal Opinion

Birdsall-Friedman Co. v. Globe & Rutgers Insurance

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 12, 1937No. Appeal, 311PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Me. Justice Baenes,

The parties to this action are engaged in the insurance business. The plaintiff, until the fall of 1932, was the resident agent in this state of the defendant, which is an insurance company of the State of New York, authorized to transact business in Pennsylvania.

The plaintiff brought this action in equity for an accounting to ascertain and recover commissions alleged to be due from defendant. It concedes that the terms of its agency contract with defendant do not confer upon it a right to the commissions claimed, but contends that a recognized trade custom,…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Peoples Natural Gas Co. v. Braddock Wire Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
  2. Sergeant's Heirs v. EwingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1860
  3. Beedy v. Nypano RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
  4. Daub's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
  5. Fisher v. RonemusSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Law v. MacKieSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
  2. William Sellers & Co. v. Clarke-Harrison, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1946
  3. Philadelphia Fresh Food Terminal Corp. v. M. Levin & Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
  4. Ryan v. HudakSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
  5. Pittsburgh Die Sinkers Lodge No. 50 v. Pittsburgh Forgings Co.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1966

3 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