McCarthy v. Marshall

Seventh Circuit

McCarthy v. Marshall

278 F. 522, 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 2848

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedJanuary 3, 1922

DocketNo. 2962

StatusPublished

This text of 278 F. 522 (McCarthy v. Marshall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McCarthy v. Marshall, 278 F. 522, 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 2848 (7th Cir. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The determinative issue before this court on all the assignments of error is one of fact, viz.: Does the evidence present a jury question respecting the right of plaintiff in error to recover for broker’s services in negotiating the sale of the Eafayette Courier, a newspaper published at Lafayette, Ind.? The evidence consists of numerous letters and telegrams and some oral testimony, the substance of which it is not deemed necessary to here specifically detail. To set it forth in full or to discuss its effect would contribute nothing of value to the parties or of interest to the bar on the subject of a broker’s right to recover a commission for services rendered, No legal question not well settled is involved. We have viewed the testimony most favorably to the plaintiff in error, and find no basis for his recovery. The court committed no error in directing a verdict for the defendant in error.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The determinative issue before this court on all the assignments of error is one of fact, viz.: Does the evidence present a jury question respecting the right of plaintiff in error to recover for broker’s services in negotiating the sale of the Eafayette Courier, a newspaper published at Lafayette, Ind.? The evidence consists of numerous letters and telegrams and some oral testimony, the substance of which it is not deemed necessary to here specifically detail. To set it forth in full or to discuss its effect would contribute nothing of value to the parties or of interest to the bar on the subject of a broker’s right to recover a commission for services rendered, No legal question not well settled is involved. We have viewed the testimony most favorably to the plaintiff in error, and find no basis for his recovery. The court committed no error in directing a verdict for the defendant in error.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 F. 522, 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 2848, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccarthy-v-marshall-ca7-1922.