Case ID: pa-super_75/html/0228-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Keller, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Margulis v. Knoell & Knoell, Appellants.
    
      Beal estate — Sales—Commissions—Joint premises — Liability.
    An action will lie against two defendants jointly for the recovery of commissions for the sale of real estate under a special contract, where the evidence is sufficient to sustain a finding that the defendants had jointly promised to pay the plaintiff a certain sum, if he obtained a purchaser for a piece of property.
    There was no necessity that there should be proof of joint ownership by the defendants of the real estate in question. If they agreed jointly to pay a stated compensation, provided tbe plaintiff ■secured a purchaser for the property at a fixed price and he complied with the condition, they were liable whether the real estate belonged to either or both.
    When the plaintiff secured a purchaser who was ready and willing to buy the property, he had carried out his part of the contract and wias entitled to his commission. The fact that the defendants did not complete a verbal agreement for the sale of the real estate did not affect the plaintiff’s right to compensation for his services.
    Argued October 12, 1920.
    Appeal, No. 101, Oct. T., 1920, by defendants, from tbe judgment of tbe Municipal Court of Philadelphia, Aug. T., 1919, No. 268, on verdict for tbe plaintiff in tbe case of David Margulis v. John Knoell and George Knoell.
    Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller and Linn, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Assumpsit for commissions for tbe sale of real estate. Before Knowles, J.
    Tbe opinion of tbe Superior Court states tbe case.
    Verdict for tbe plaintiff for $812 and judgment thereon. Defendants appealed.
    
      Errors assigned were answers to points and refusal of defendants’ motion for judgment non obstante veredicto.
    
      Abraham Friedman, and with him Bernard A. Illoway and Barry Felix, for appellants.
    A joint action could be maintained by tbe plaintiff, only if tbe defendants were jointly liable, and there must be sufficient proof of a joint promise or undertaking: Eowan v. Eowan, 29 Pa. 181, 183; Corbet v. Evans, 25 Pa. 310; Locke v. Daugherty, 43 Pa. 88; Wolff v. Wilson, 28 Pa. Superior Ct. 511, 517, 518.
    
      Abraham Werniek, of Evans, Forster & Wernick, for appellees,
    cited: Leiberman v. Colaban, 267 Pa. 102; Smith v. Machesney, 238 Pa. 542; Walker v. Tupper, 152 Pa. 1; Sopp v. Winpenny, 68 Pa. 78; McCanna v. Johnston, 19 Pa. 434; Hinski v. Stein, 68 Pa. Superior Ct. 441.
    December 10, 1920:
   Opinion by

Keller, J.,

The action was in assumpsit. The statement of claim averred that the defendants promised to pay plaintiff $300 if he would obtain a purchaser for certain real estate at the price of $12,000; that he procured such purchaser, who paid $100 down money and stood ready to complete the purchase, but that defendants used said transaction to induce the tenant in possession to buy said premises and refused to sell to the purchaser whom plaintiff had obtained or to pay him the agreed compensation for his services. The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount of his claim.

The assignments of error raise three questions.

1. The appellants contend there can be no recovery in this action because there was no joint promise by them. The trial judge left the question whether there was a joint promise by the defendants to the jury and covered the matter clearly and explicitly in his charge. If there was any evidence to sustain the verdict in this regard, it should not be disturbed. We have examined the testimony and are satisfied there was ¡evidence, which, if believed, was sufficient to sustain a finding that the defendants had jointly promised to pay the plaintiff $300 if he secured a purchaser for the real estate at $12,000.

2. The second ground for reversal urged is that there was no proof of joint ownership of the real estate by the defendants. There did not have to be. If these defendants jointly agreed to pay a stated compensation provided plaintiff secured a purchaser of real estate at a fixed price and he complied with the condition, they are liable whether the real estate belonged to either or both. Even an agent in charge of real estate may personally obligate bimself to pay a broker’s commission for its sale if such agreement is original and not collateral to a primary obligation by or on behalf of the owner: Lieberman v. Colahan, 267 Pa. 102.

3. The third reason advanced by the appellants is that the purchaser secured by plaintiff never actually signed a written agreement of sale. The evidence shows that he was ready and willing to sign such an agreement and that he was prevented from doing so only by the defendants’ refusal to carry out the verbal agreement. The plaintiff’s compensation was earned when he complied with the condition on which it was based. Whether the purchaser he secured could compel specific performance of the contract has no bearing on the plaintiff’s right to compensation.

The assignments of error are all overruled and the judgment is affirmed.