Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

In 1926 Ps were engaged in the insurance brokerage business in Philadelphia. Ps offered to place with D contracts for the reinsurance of for a consideration of five percent of all premiums collected by D on such policies. P went to New York City to negotiate an agreement with William Ehmann, an agent of D. Ehmann stated he would have to obtain authority to accept the offer from the home office in Kansas City. P returned to Philadelphia. P received a telephone call from Ehmann accepting the offer. D entered into the required which was modified and renewed and continues in effect. From 1926 until 1953 D paid the agreed upon commissions. In 1953, D notified P that it did not consider itself obligated further under the contract. P sued D in a Pennsylvania state court for breach of contract. The trial judge found that the contract was made in New York, and applying the New York Statute of Frauds, held that the agreement was unenforceable thereunder because it was not to be performed within one year from the date it was entered into. P appealed. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed. It held there was no evidence presented regarding Ehmann’s physical location when he accepted on the phone. The case was remanded. The jury found that the call was not placed from New York and held for P. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.