Allegheny County Workhouse v. Moore

Decision Date25 October 1880
Citation95 Pa. 408
PartiesThe Allegheny County Workhouse <I>versus</I> Moore.
CourtPennsylvania Supreme Court

Before SHARSWOOD, C. J., MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON, TRUNKEY, STERRETT and GREEN, JJ.

Error to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 1, of Allegheny county: Of October and November Term 1880, No. 198.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

S. H. Geyer and W. B. Rodgers, for plaintiff in error.—The defendant, being a public corporation, operated by a board of managers, consisting of five citizens, who are empowered by its charter to make contracts and transact all its business, cannot be bound by a contract unless the board has entered into it or authorized it to be entered into: Cooper & Grove v. Lampeter Township, 8 Watts 128; Allegheny Co. v. Leckey, 6 S. & R. 170. They never exercised the power, as far as the plaintiff was concerned. They had nothing to do with him in regard to the matter. It cannot be possible that they should be estopped under the circumstances from selling to Lockhart without making the defendant liable for the commissions claimed by the plaintiff, about $2600. He volunteered the information, and if any advantage was given the defendant by reason thereof, he cannot claim compensation.

J. M. Stoner, for defendant in error.—All that is required to entitle a broker to his commissions is, that he bring the parties together and that they enter into a contract of purchase and sale: Haines v. Begner, 9 Phila. R. 51; Clendennon v. Pancoast, 25 P. F. Smith 213; Reed v. Reed, 1 Norris 420; Keys v. Johnston, 28 P. F. Smith 42. The sale was completed by the principal on the very terms submitted by the broker, and brings it within the ruling of the last cited case. The evidence was abundantly sufficient to warrant the court in referring the proof of Moore's employment as broker to the jury: Valentine v. Packer, 5 Barr 333; Union Refining Co. v. Bushnel, 7 Norris 89.

Mr. Justice STERRETT delivered the opinion of the court, October 25th 1880.

It must be conceded that the plaintiff below had no right to recover without proving to the satisfaction of the jury, by competent and sufficient testimony, that he was employed by the corporation defendant to sell or procure a purchaser for the barrels it would manufacture during the year 1878, and that, in pursuance of such employment, he either sold the barrels or procured a purchaser for them. His action was grounded solely on these allegations of fact, all of which were denied by the defendant; and, of course, the burden of making out his case was on him. He endeavored to establish the fact of his employment by proving what had been said by the president of the board of managers, by one of the members of the board and by the superintendent of the workhouse, each separately and on different occasions. He utterly failed to show that any corporate action was had by the board, by virtue of which he was employed or by which the power to employ him was delegated to any member of the board or to the superintendent. The testimony on this point tended rather to negative the fact of any such action on the part of the board.

By the Act of March 23d 1872, the board of managers, composed of five citizens of the county, was made a public corporation by the name of "The Allegheny County Workhouse and Inebriate Asylum," with full power and authority to establish, erect and manage the institution, to make contracts, sue and be sued, and generally to do whatever is necessary in conducting its operations and providing profitable employment for its inmates. The board of managers was thus invested with important corporate powers, some of which, in their exercise, require consideration, deliberation and judgment. Where such is the case, "all should be convened, because the advice and opinions of all may be useful, though they do not unite in opinion:" In re Turnpike Road, 5 Binn. 481; Commissioners of Allegheny...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • Sword v. Reformed Congregation Keneseth Israel
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • December 11, 1905
    ... ... v. Jackson, 102 Pa. 269; ... Zoebisch v. Rauch, 133 Pa. 532; Moore v ... Patterson, 28 Pa. 505; Copeland v. Tannery Co., ... 142 Pa. 446; ... Hood v. Hood, 2 Grant, 229 ... The ... case of Allegheny County Workhouse v. Moore, 95 Pa ... 408, not only governs the case at ... ...
  • Sidney School Furniture Co. v. Warsaw Township School District
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • October 30, 1893
    ... ... v. Rowland, 94 Pa. 238; Allegheny Co. Work House v ... Moore, 95 Pa. 408; Erie School District v ... ...
  • Smith v. Crum Lynne Iron & Steel Co.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • March 21, 1904
    ...Bangor & Portland Ry. Co. v. American Bangor Slate Co., 203 Pa. 6; B. & O. Employees' Relief Assn. v. Post, 122 Pa. 579; Allegheny County Workhouse v. Moore, 95 Pa. 408; Ins. Bank of Columbus v. Bank of U.S., 4 Clark, Jackson v. Cartwright Lumber Co., 2 Pa. Dist. Rep. 680; Harvey v. Schuylk......
  • Weschler v. Buffalo & Lake Erie Traction Co.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • July 18, 1912
    ... ... Pa. 355; Twelfth St. Market Co. v. Jackson, 102 Pa ... 269; Allegheny County Workhouse v. Moore, 95 Pa ... 408; First Nat. Bank v. Hoch, 89 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT