Ehrenstrom v. Hess

Citations

• 262 Pa. 104
• 105 A. 44
• 1918 Pa. LEXIS 599

Syllabus

<p>Principal and agent — Sales — ■Commissions — Terms of sale — Authority of brolcer — Conflicting evidence — Sale under different terms — Written agreement — Alleged modification — Telephone conversation-identification — Evidence—Case for jury.</p> <p>1. In an action by a broker against his principal for the recovery of commissions for negotiating the sale of goods, a verdict for the defendant will be sustained where it appeared that defendant had authorized plaintiff in writing to sell the goods on certain terms and the evidence was conflicting as to whether defendant subsequently gave him verbal authority to sell on different terms under which plaintiff effected the sale.</p> <p>2. In such case where the subsequent verbal conversation was over the telephone the court did not err in refusing to permit a witness present in plaintiff’s office at the time to testify as to what plaintiff said, where the witness did not go to the telephone himself, and it was not alleged that he knew who was at the other end of the wire; especially where plaintiff confirmed such telephone conversation by letter without mentioning therein any change in the terms under which he was authorized to make the sale; but the court properly permitted a witness in defendant’s office to testify as to what defendant said over the telephone, where it appeared such witness answered the telephone, and was informed that the exchange of the city in which plaintiff’s office was located was calling defendant, that the witness then called defendant to the telephone and heard him address plaintiff by name, and that defendant then stated that he would not change the original terms for the sale of the goods.</p> <p>3. A witness who is in a room while a party is telephoning may not testify as to what the latter said unless it is first shown who was at the other end of the wire.</p>