Court Opinion

ID: 9754804
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 20:14:40.941178+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:58.338434
License: Public Domain

Condon, J.,
dissenting. I am of the opinion that on the evidence here it was a question for the jury whether the plaintiff was acting in a dual capacity as agent of the de*359fendant and Hemphill Company at the same time in the same transaction. Therefore I dissent and would hold that the trial justice rightly left such question to the jury.
Thomas F. Vance, Jr., for plaintiff. .
McMahon & McMahon, for defendant.
On Show Cause Order.
AUGUST 16, 1957.
Per Curiam.
In the above-entitled case, pursuant to our opinion heretofore filed, the plaintiff through his attorney appeared to show cause why the case should not be remitted to the superior court for entry of judgment for the defendant as therein directed. At that time he presented reasons in support of his contention that the verdict should be sustained.
Upon consideration we are of the opinion that no sufficient cause has been shown to change our conclusions, and the case is remitted to the superior court for entry of judgment for the defendant as directed in the opinion.