¶1We have examined the several assignments of error and are of opinion that they are without merit. The plaintiff was not a real estate broker in contemplation of the act of assembly requiring him to have a license authorizing him to sell real estate before he could recover for his services in this case. The plaintiff alleged as the basis of his right to recover, a contract whereby the defendant agreed to pay him a certain sum if he would find a purchaser for the defendant’s property, and that he did secure a purchaser. 'The defendant admitted substantially the agree.ment as claimed by the plaintiff, but averred, contrary to the contention of the plaintiff, that the latter had not the exclusive right to dispose of the property, and that the defendant sold it. The question at issue, therefore, was one of fact, and having been properly submitted to the jury, the judgment is affirmed.
204 Pa. 119
Black v. Snook
Decided November 3, 1902
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1902-11-03
Appeal, No. 150, Oct. T., 1902, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Venango Co., Aug. T., 1901, No. 61, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Fred B. Black v. E. W. Snook. Assumpsit to recover for services in selling real estate. Before Lindsey, P. J., specially presiding. At the trial it appeared that plaintiff claimed to recover §2,000 for selling real estate in the city of Franklin for the sum of §77,000, under a special contract.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Affirmed · Decided 1902-11-03
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently June 1944
1 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →