E. B. Kelley Co. v. Edelen & Boyer Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

E. B. Kelley Co. v. Edelen & Boyer Co.

100 Pa. Super. 77, 1930 Pa. Super. LEXIS 21

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 1, 1930

DocketAppeal 22

StatusPublished

This text of 100 Pa. Super. 77 (E. B. Kelley Co. v. Edelen & Boyer Co.) 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

E. B. Kelley Co. v. Edelen & Boyer Co., 100 Pa. Super. 77, 1930 Pa. Super. LEXIS 21 (Pa. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion bt

Trexler, P. J.,

Plaintiff brought this action to recover for merchandise sold and delivered to the defendant. Defendant *79 introduced a set-off and counter-claim alleging that in consideration of the defendant’s giving to the plaintiff the name of a prospective customer, who would place its order with the plaintiff, the plaintiff promised to give the defendant half the commission earned by the plaintiff.

We quote from the opinion of Judge Crane: “Plaintiff’s general manager testified that .as a result of a conversation had with the salesman, no longer in plaintiff’s employ, he ascertained that the Pennsylvania Brick & Tile Company were in the market for rack cars. He did not state the subject matter of such conversation, which would have violated the hearsay rule, but testified that in pursuance of such conversation he personally called on the Pennsylvania Brick & Tile Company, and secured the order. As general manager of the plaintiff company, he had knowledge that this salesman had been supplying quotations for these rack cars, and he merely testified to his own personal knowledge of the transaction.”

The manager testified that his agent informed him that he “was talking with them [the Pennsylvania Brick & Tile Company] about block machinery and equipment in general, among which was .the cars.” The admission of what the agent told the manager he had done was of doubtful propriety, but as this was followed by testimony of the manager himself that he had personally seen the customer’s officer, it lost its importance. It was not a material error and does not call for a reversal.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Opinion bt

Trexler, P. J.,

Plaintiff brought this action to recover for merchandise sold and delivered to the defendant. Defendant *79 introduced a set-off and counter-claim alleging that in consideration of the defendant’s giving to the plaintiff the name of a prospective customer, who would place its order with the plaintiff, the plaintiff promised to give the defendant half the commission earned by the plaintiff.

We quote from the opinion of Judge Crane: “Plaintiff’s general manager testified that .as a result of a conversation had with the salesman, no longer in plaintiff’s employ, he ascertained that the Pennsylvania Brick & Tile Company were in the market for rack cars. He did not state the subject matter of such conversation, which would have violated the hearsay rule, but testified that in pursuance of such conversation he personally called on the Pennsylvania Brick & Tile Company, and secured the order. As general manager of the plaintiff company, he had knowledge that this salesman had been supplying quotations for these rack cars, and he merely testified to his own personal knowledge of the transaction.”

The manager testified that his agent informed him that he “was talking with them [the Pennsylvania Brick & Tile Company] about block machinery and equipment in general, among which was .the cars.” The admission of what the agent told the manager he had done was of doubtful propriety, but as this was followed by testimony of the manager himself that he had personally seen the customer’s officer, it lost its importance. It was not a material error and does not call for a reversal.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 Pa. Super. 77, 1930 Pa. Super. LEXIS 21, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/e-b-kelley-co-v-edelen-boyer-co-pasuperct-1930.