Mayer v. Rhoads
This text of 20 A. 158 (Mayer v. Rhoads) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
20 A. 158, 135 Pa. 601, 1890 Pa. LEXIS 1226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mayer-v-rhoads-pa-1890.