Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BURG v. ABERMAN (12/28/56)

December 28, 1956

BURG
v.
ABERMAN, APPELLANT.



Appeal, No. 122, April T., 1956, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, April T., 1953, No. 815, in case of Anchel Burg v. A. J. Aberman et al. Order affirmed.

COUNSEL

Samuel Avins, for appellant.

John G. Masick, for appellee.

Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, and Carr, JJ.

Author: Gunther

[ 183 Pa. Super. Page 2]

OPINION BY GUNTHER, J.

Anchel Burg, plaintiff, entered suit against A. J. Aberman and A. J. Aberman, Incorporated, to recover the sum of $3,000.00 as broker's commissions for his activity in connection with certain real estate transactions. The action is based on an oral contract. The events which led up to the consummation of the alleged agreement were as follows:

George A. Meyers was an owner of a parcel of real estate located in the 29th Ward of the city of Pittsburgh. Plaintiff contends that, as a result of his activities, A. J. Aberman entered into a contract with George A. Meyers to purchase the parcel for $70,000.00. He also claims to have negotiated certain leases with the Kroger Company and the Jefferson Grocery Company under terms agreeable to the defendant. Two separate commissions are involved in this case, one for $2,500.00 for the transaction of the parcel and the other for $500.00 for the leases.

The evidence reveals that a conveyance of the Meyer property was subsequently made; but it also very clearly educes the fact that no leases whatsoever were executed, as claimed, by either of the grocery companies.

[ 183 Pa. Super. Page 3]

Defendant not only denies entering into any oral agreement, but avers that the sale of the parcel was in no manner the result of the activities of the plaintiff.

Mr. Aberman in his testimony states that the only conversation he ever had with plaintiff was concerning a contract for the construction of a building on the premises in question, providing that plaintiff would be the low bidder.

The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $2,500.00. A motion for judgment n.o.v. was made and refused. A motion for a new trial was granted by the court on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The lower court's refusal to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.