Mayer v. Rhoads

20 A. 158, 135 Pa. 601, 1890 Pa. LEXIS 1226
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided June 2, 1890·No. No. 54·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Pee Ctjeiam:

There are three short extracts from the charge of the court assigned as error. Whether we consider the charge as a whole, or the isolated and brief sentences referred to in the assignments, it is free from error. The proposition that the plaintiff is entitled to recover commissions as a broker from a man who never employed him, nor authorized him to sell the tobacco, cannot be sustained either upon reason or authority. It certainly is not supported by Smith v. Milligan, 43 Pa. 107, or Keys v. Johnson, 68 Pa. 42. In neither case is there any indication of the right of a broker to recover without a pre[604]*604vious employment, while Reed v. Tomlinson, 14 Leg. Int. 116, and Inslee v. Jones, Bright. 76, are the other way. The case is too plain for argument.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Mayer v. Rhoads, 20 A. 158, 135 Pa. 601, 1890 Pa. LEXIS 1226 (Pa. 1890).

20 A. 158 (Mayer v. Rhoads) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Seligson v. Young
151 A.2d 792 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1959)
Henderson v. Sonneborn
30 Pa. Super. 182 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1906)
Samuels v. Luckenbach
54 A. 1091 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1903)