Roberts v. Ros

344 F.2d 747 (3d. Cir. 1965)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Ross (D) promised to pay Roberts (P) $3,087.50 for finding a buyer for a house which D owned. At trial, D claimed that he never made such a promise and raised the defense of the Statute of Frauds. On December 30, 1963, the trial judge entered an order stating that he had found for D and he directed D's counsel to file a proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and draft a judgment. P's counsel was allowed to file objections, and he did. On January 14, 1964, the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment prepared and filed by D's counsel were signed by the trial judge. The findings stated that P had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the sale of the property by D was procured through the agency of P and that because the promise was not in a writing, it fell within the Statute of Frauds. The judge signed the documents over the objection of P. P appealed.