Horlacher v. Bear

Citations

• 32 Pa. Super. 269
• 1906 Pa. Super. LEXIS 336

Syllabus

<p>Principal and agent — Broker—Set-off—Evidence.</p> <p>In an action against a broker to recover balances alleged to be due on transactions in wheat, it appeared that the plaintiff lived in another town than the defendant, and that the defendant received the orders from a broker living in plaintiff’s town. After the orders were executed, defendant addressed a notice to the plaintiff advising him of what had been done. These notices were not sent to the plaintiff .dhectly, but to the broker from whom the orders came. Defendant in his affidavit of defense averred that all his dealings had been with the broker as principal, that he had never executed any orders for plaintiff, or knew him in the business, and that the notices had been sent to the broker at the latter’s request, and for his convenience and accommodation, and were not intended for the plaintiff, nor was the broker warranted in delivering them to him; that defendant had settled his accounts with the broker, and did not owe anything either to the broker or the plaintiff. Held, that the affidavit of defense was sufficient to prevent judgment.</p>