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.

PENNSYLVANIA STATE REAL ESTATE COMMISSION v. KELLER (11/15/60)

November 15, 1960

PENNSYLVANIA STATE REAL ESTATE COMMISSION
v.
KELLER, APPELLANT.



Appeal, No. 4, May T., 1961, from order of Superior Court, March T., 1960, No. 11, affirming order of Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, No. 309 Commonwealth Docket, 1958, in case of Pennsylvania State Real Estate Commission v. Ephraim H. Keller. Order reversed.

COUNSEL

Bruce E. Cooper, with him Cooper and Woodside, for appellant.

George W. Schroeck, Assistant Attorney General, with him Morris Dean, Deputy Attorney General, and Anne X. Alpern, Attorney Genral, for Pennsylvania State Real Estate Commission, appellee.

Before Jones, C.j., Bell, Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Bok and Eagen, JJ.

Author: Bok

[ 401 Pa. Page 455]

OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE BOK

The Commission, plaintiff, ordered suspended for four months the license of appellant defendant, a real estate broker. This action was taken under § 10(a) of the Act of May 1, 1929, P.L. 1216, 63 PS § 440(a), as amended, which allows the investigation of challenged affairs of real estate brokers and the suspension or revocation of their licenses for certain specified acts.

By the same Act, at Section 10(d), 63 PS § 440(d), as amended by the Administrative Agency Law, Act of June 4, 1945, P.L. 1388, 71 PS §§ 1710.41 & 1710.51, Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County. On appeal Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County. On appeal to it, that court considered and dismissed appellant's appeal from the order of the Commission suspending his license, and he then appealed to the Superior Court, which, with Judge WOODSIDE abstaining, divided evenly and hence sustained the Dauphin County court without opinion. Shortly after, we allowed allocatur.

Appellant was charged with and found guilty of three of the thirteen violations enumerated in § 10(a) of the Act, 63 PS § 440(a). These were:

[ 401 Pa. Page 456]

(1) Knowingly making a substantial misrepresentation;

(5) Failing to account for or to pay over moneys belonging to others, which had come into his possession arising out of a real estate transaction;

(7) An act or conduct in connection with a real estate transaction that demonstrates incompetency, ...


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.