Harold E. Hoertkorn v. Canonsburg Pottery Co.

Third Circuit

Harold E. Hoertkorn v. Canonsburg Pottery Co.

187 F.2d 733, 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 2304

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMarch 26, 1951

Docket10369_1

StatusPublished

This text of 187 F.2d 733 (Harold E. Hoertkorn v. Canonsburg Pottery Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harold E. Hoertkorn v. Canonsburg Pottery Co., 187 F.2d 733, 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 2304 (3d Cir. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case presents a claim on behalf of a plaintiff against a defendant for violation of an alleged agreement to pay commissions to the plaintiff, a salesman. Plaintiff had a verdict and judgment in the trial court and the defendant appeals. No federal question is involved; the federal court has jurisdiction on grounds of diversity *734 only. Nor does the case present any legal question on which the parties are in dispute. The plaintiff’s verdict was for considerably less than he claimed, but he makes no point of that. Questions of fact were submitted to a jury by the Trial Judge and we do not find in the verdict or the manner m which the case was submitted any error which seems to us grounds for reversal.

The judgment will, therefore, be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This case presents a claim on behalf of a plaintiff against a defendant for violation of an alleged agreement to pay commissions to the plaintiff, a salesman. Plaintiff had a verdict and judgment in the trial court and the defendant appeals. No federal question is involved; the federal court has jurisdiction on grounds of diversity *734 only. Nor does the case present any legal question on which the parties are in dispute. The plaintiff’s verdict was for considerably less than he claimed, but he makes no point of that. Questions of fact were submitted to a jury by the Trial Judge and we do not find in the verdict or the manner m which the case was submitted any error which seems to us grounds for reversal.

The judgment will, therefore, be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 F.2d 733, 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 2304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harold-e-hoertkorn-v-canonsburg-pottery-co-ca3-1951.