Curatolo v. Venafrana Beneficial Society St. Nicandro
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Curatolo v. Venafrana Beneficial Society St. Nicandro, 70 Pa. Super. 542 (1918)
1918 Pa. Super. LEXIS 303
Head, Henderson, Kephart, Orlady, Porter, Trexler, Williams
Curatolo v. Venafrana Beneficial Society St. Nicandro
Opinion of the Court
The plaintiff recovered a verdict, and after a hearing on a motion for judgment non obstante veredicto the judgment was entered in favor of the defendant. A careful examination of the testimony has convinced us that the case falls within the ruling of Earp v. Cummings, 54 Pa. 394, which has been followed in many cases in the Supreme, and in this court: Kifer v. Yoder, 198 Pa. 308; Speer v. Benedum Trees Oil Co., 239 Pa. 180; Groskin v. Moore, 249 Pa. 242; Barker v. Miller, 41 Pa. Superior Ct. 442, and cases noted in the opinion filed in the court below.
The conclusion reached by the trial judge in disposing of the motion is sustained by the authorities on which he relied.
The judgment is affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Curatolo v. Venafrana Beneficial Society St. Nicandro of Philadelphia
- Cited By
- 3 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Brokers — Beal estate iroker — Commissions. A real estate broker is not entitled to commissions on a sale of real estate, where it appears that the sale was made six months after he had ceased to be an agent for the sale, and he fails to show that his efforts were the immediate, efficient and procuring cause of the sale.