From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Reinhart v. Cunningham

Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jan 14, 1932
157 A. 896 (Md. 1932)

Opinion

[No. 82, October Term, 1931.]

Decided January 14th, 1932.

Broker — Action for Commissions — Evidence.

In an action by a broker for commissions, if no rate or amount of commission was agreed on, evidence as to the customary rate in the community is admissible.

In an action by a broker for commissions on the sale of property, evidence that defendant had other property in plaintiff's hands for sale, held admissible as reflecting on defendant's denial that plaintiff was his agent to sell the property involved in the case.

Decided January 14th, 1932.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Allegany County (DOUB, J.).

Action by Benjamin Y. Cunningham against Joseph H. Reinhart. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The cause was argued before BOND, C.J., URNER, ADKINS, OFFUTT, PARKE, and SLOAN, JJ.

George W. Legge, Jr., and Saul Praeger, submitting on brief, for the appellant.

Charles G. Watson, for the appellee.


Unreported cases.


Summaries of

Reinhart v. Cunningham

Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jan 14, 1932
157 A. 896 (Md. 1932)
Case details for

Reinhart v. Cunningham

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH H. REINHART v . BENJAMIN Y. CUNNINGHAM

Court:Court of Appeals of Maryland

Date published: Jan 14, 1932

Citations

157 A. 896 (Md. 1932)
157 A. 896

Citing Cases

Car-Freshner Corporation v. Marlenn Products Company

" See also Webster v. P.W. Moore Son, 1908, 108 Md. 572, 592, 71 A. 466; Conservation Company v. Stimpson,…