Case Name: Hugh S. Walker v. Harry L. Randal, Appellant
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1925-02-27
Citations: 85 Pa. Super. 443
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 67
Parties: Hugh S. Walker v. Harry L. Randal, Appellant.
Judges: Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 85
Pages: 443–454

Head Matter:
Hugh S. Walker v. Harry L. Randal, Appellant.
Argued December 3, 1924.
Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.
Albert T. Bauerle, for appellant.
The property was not sold through the efforts of the plaintiff, and he was not entitled to a commission: Barber v. Miller, 41 Pa. Superior Ct. 442; Kellogg v. Conklin, 6 Phila. 177; Stevenson v. Bannan, 227 Pa. 498; Turner v. Baker, 225 Pa. 359; Pierce v. Truitt, 12 Atlantic 661; Michener v. Beirn, 9 County 637; Brennan v. Perry, 7 Phila. 242; Pratt v. Patterson, 7 Phila. 135; Speer v. BenedumTrees Oil Co., 239 Pa. 180; Yerkes v. Osborne, 42 Pa. Superior Ct. 253.
February 27, 1925:
Clarence Hall, of Orr & Hall, and with him C. Townley Larzelere, for appellee.
The case was for a jury as to whether or not the plaintiff had earned his commission : Allen v. Line, 11 Sup. 517; Braunchweiger v. Waits, 179 Pa. 47; Fullman v. Rose, 160 Pa. 47; Platz v. McKean Township, 178 Pa. 601; Earp v. Cummins, 54 Pa. 394; Kiefer v. Yoder, 198 Pa. 308.

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
The plaintiff recovered a verdict of $2,500. After argument, a new trial was refused and judgment entered against the defendant. In an opinion filed by the trial judge, every pertinent question is reviewed and disposed of. Under the authorities cited, we see no reason for disturbing the verdict.
The judgment is affirmed.