Case Name: PIECHOCKI v. WARNER
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1924-11-21
Citations: 3 Ohio Law Abs. 12
Docket Number: No. 148
Parties: PIECHOCKI v. WARNER
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 3
Pages: 12–13

Head Matter:
PIECHOCKI v. WARNER
Ohio Appeals, 3rd Dist., Henry County
No. 148.
Decided Nov. 21, 1924
182. BROKERS—In cases of dual agency it is a question for the jury to decide whether the agent has made complete disclosure of all material circumstances before he is entitled to- commission.
Published only in Ohio Law Abstract

Opinion:
HUGHES, J.
Epitomized Opinion
Action in Henry Common Pleas upon note. Defense that note was given in payment of real estate commission in which Piechocki acted as agent for both parties without disclosing the fact that the other party was to pay him a commission also. The trial court charged the jury that if Piechocki did not disclose to tfi'e defendant that .the other party had agreed to pay him a commission, then Piechocki conld not recover. In reversing the judgment the appeals court held:
Attorneys—Eagan & Eagan, Edgar M. Flowers for Piechocki; Reiger & Meekison for Warner, all of Napoleon.
1. The judge infringed upon the province of the jury, as it should determine whether there has been sufficient disclosure of the material facts by the agent.