Bromley v. Standard-Plunger Elevator Co.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania

Bromley v. Standard-Plunger Elevator Co.

144 F. 713, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4727

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 5, 1906

DocketNo. 18

StatusPublished

This text of 144 F. 713 (Bromley v. Standard-Plunger Elevator Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bromley v. Standard-Plunger Elevator Co., 144 F. 713, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4727 (circtwdpa 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

BUFFINGTON, District Judge.

This is a motion for a new trial. From the amount of the verdict it is clear the jury did not adopt the plaintiffs’ contention that they should be allowed 10 per cent, commission. Apart from all other contentions it will therefore be seen the testimony as to the worth of the services in question generally, and wdthout reference to specific contracts, did not lead the jury to adopt the alleged 10 per cent, of the contract. If, however, they had adopted such 10 per cent, basis, we are of opinion there was no error in admitting testimony to show the worth of such services, and therefore the reasonableness of such rate and the probability such contract was made. Rauch v. Scholl, 68 Pa. 234; Buckingham v. Harris, 10 Colo. 455, 15 Pac. 817; Barney v. Fuller, 133 N. Y. 605, 30 N. E. 1007; Allison v. Horning, 22 Ohio St. 138. In reference to the claim for special compensation for office accommodations, services in installation, etc., we see no error in the court’s permitting this branch of the case to go to the jury. Apart from other evidence supporting it, that claim was averred in the statement of claim, which was offered and received in evidence:

On the whole, we think the defendant company has no substantial ground of complaint.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BUFFINGTON, District Judge.

This is a motion for a new trial. From the amount of the verdict it is clear the jury did not adopt the plaintiffs’ contention that they should be allowed 10 per cent, commission. Apart from all other contentions it will therefore be seen the testimony as to the worth of the services in question generally, and wdthout reference to specific contracts, did not lead the jury to adopt the alleged 10 per cent, of the contract. If, however, they had adopted such 10 per cent, basis, we are of opinion there was no error in admitting testimony to show the worth of such services, and therefore the reasonableness of such rate and the probability such contract was made. Rauch v. Scholl, 68 Pa. 234; Buckingham v. Harris, 10 Colo. 455, 15 Pac. 817; Barney v. Fuller, 133 N. Y. 605, 30 N. E. 1007; Allison v. Horning, 22 Ohio St. 138. In reference to the claim for special compensation for office accommodations, services in installation, etc., we see no error in the court’s permitting this branch of the case to go to the jury. Apart from other evidence supporting it, that claim was averred in the statement of claim, which was offered and received in evidence:

On the whole, we think the defendant company has no substantial ground of complaint.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 F. 713, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4727, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bromley-v-standard-plunger-elevator-co-circtwdpa-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack