Curry v. West

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Curry v. West

88 Pa. Super. 261, 1926 Pa. Super. LEXIS 167

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 26, 1926

DocketAppeal 23

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 88 Pa. Super. 261 (Curry v. West) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Curry v. West, 88 Pa. Super. 261, 1926 Pa. Super. LEXIS 167 (Pa. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Trexler, J.,

This is an appeal from ia case tried before a jury in the County Court of Allegheny County.

No point for binding instructions was presented nor any exception taken to the charge of the court. The Common P'leas court refused the appeal. Such an appeal should not be allowed unless a retrial on the issues of fact is necessary to prevent injustice, and we may not reverse where an appeal has been refused in the exercise of sound judicial discretion. Harris & Rhodes v. Brinton, 75 Pa. Superior Ct. 68, and cases there cited.

Plaintiff, a real estate agent, claimed that he sold a property for the defendant and thereby earned his commission. As ia result of advertisements spread by him, he received a call from one of the future purchasers of the property. The property was deeded to a third party by the defendant, but was later transferred to the person with whom the plaintiff had had negotiations and whose attention he had brought to the property. There was evidence that confirmed the plaintiff’s claim that the introduction of the third party was a mere subterfuge to get rid of paying him commissions.

The comment of the lower court was justified that *263 “the trial was full and fair, the weight of the testimony, and the fair inference to be derived from it, ¡all favored the plaintiff.”

The order is affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Trexler, J.,

This is an appeal from ia case tried before a jury in the County Court of Allegheny County.

No point for binding instructions was presented nor any exception taken to the charge of the court. The Common P'leas court refused the appeal. Such an appeal should not be allowed unless a retrial on the issues of fact is necessary to prevent injustice, and we may not reverse where an appeal has been refused in the exercise of sound judicial discretion. Harris & Rhodes v. Brinton, 75 Pa. Superior Ct. 68, and cases there cited.

Plaintiff, a real estate agent, claimed that he sold a property for the defendant and thereby earned his commission. As ia result of advertisements spread by him, he received a call from one of the future purchasers of the property. The property was deeded to a third party by the defendant, but was later transferred to the person with whom the plaintiff had had negotiations and whose attention he had brought to the property. There was evidence that confirmed the plaintiff’s claim that the introduction of the third party was a mere subterfuge to get rid of paying him commissions.

The comment of the lower court was justified that *263 “the trial was full and fair, the weight of the testimony, and the fair inference to be derived from it, ¡all favored the plaintiff.”

The order is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 Pa. Super. 261, 1926 Pa. Super. LEXIS 167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curry-v-west-pasuperct-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack