Freeman v. Foster

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Freeman v. Foster

184 A. 469, 121 Pa. Super. 595, 1936 Pa. Super. LEXIS 235

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 16, 1936

DocketAppeal, 203

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 184 A. 469 (Freeman v. Foster) 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

Freeman v. Foster, 184 A. 469, 121 Pa. Super. 595, 1936 Pa. Super. LEXIS 235 (Pa. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This case is ruled in principle by the decision of the Supreme Court in Verona v. Schenley Farms Company, 312 Pa. 57, 167 A. 317, which construed and applied the Act of May 1, 1929, P. L. 1216.

The case of Downing v. Marks, 318 Pa. 289, 178 A. 676, relied on by appellant, dealt with a contract made before the Act of 1929 was passed.

The expression Tetter of attorney’ in the provision of the Act of 1929 that the terms ‘real estate broker’ and Teal estate salesman’ shall not be held to include, inter alia, “any person holding in good faith a duly executed letter of attorney from the actual owner of any real estate, authorizing the sale, conveyance or leasing of such real estate for and in the name of such owner, or the negotiating of any loan thereon” refers to a power of attorney constituting the person named therein the attorney-in-fact for the owner of real estate, with authority to sell, convey or lease the same in the name of the owner, or to negotiate a loan thereon.

The order of the court below refusing the plaintiff’s motion to strike off judgment of non-suit is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

This case is ruled in principle by the decision of the Supreme Court in Verona v. Schenley Farms Company, 312 Pa. 57, 167 A. 317, which construed and applied the Act of May 1, 1929, P. L. 1216.

The case of Downing v. Marks, 318 Pa. 289, 178 A. 676, relied on by appellant, dealt with a contract made before the Act of 1929 was passed.

The expression Tetter of attorney’ in the provision of the Act of 1929 that the terms ‘real estate broker’ and Teal estate salesman’ shall not be held to include, inter alia, “any person holding in good faith a duly executed letter of attorney from the actual owner of any real estate, authorizing the sale, conveyance or leasing of such real estate for and in the name of such owner, or the negotiating of any loan thereon” refers to a power of attorney constituting the person named therein the attorney-in-fact for the owner of real estate, with authority to sell, convey or lease the same in the name of the owner, or to negotiate a loan thereon.

The order of the court below refusing the plaintiff’s motion to strike off judgment of non-suit is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 A. 469, 121 Pa. Super. 595, 1936 Pa. Super. LEXIS 235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/freeman-v-foster-pasuperct-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack