Case Name: Porreca v. Siano, Appellant
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1926-02-26
Citations: 87 Pa. Super. 516
Docket Number: Appeal No. 95
Parties: Porreca v. Siano, Appellant.
Judges: Before Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 87
Pages: 516–517

Head Matter:
Porreca v. Siano, Appellant.
Argued October 9, 1925.
Before Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.
James P. McCormich, and with him Vincent A. Carroll, for appellants.
There was no contract of, employment and therefore no liability to pay commissions: Lanard and Axilbund v. Thompson Printing Co., 84 Superior Ct. 199; Samuels v. Luckenbach, 205 Pa. 428; Henderson v. Sonneborn, 30 Pa. Superior Ct. 182; Keys v. Johnson, 68 Pa. 42; Earp v. Cummins, 54 Pa. 394.
Samuel M. Israeli, for appellee.
When a broker brings a seller and a buyer together in a real estate transaction, he is entitled to a commission: Peters v. Holmes, 45 Pa. Superior Ct. 278; Cain v. Werner, 67 Pa. Superior Ct. 438; Spiess v. Ford, 71 Pa. Superior Ct. 210.
February 26, 1926:

Opinion:
Opinion by
Henderson, J.,
The plaintiff's 'action; was brought to recover a commission alleged to be due for bringing about a sale of real estate owned by the defendant. The case rested on evidence that the plaintiff was a real estate broker; that his attention was brought to the fact that the defendant owned a house which he wished to sell; that the plaintiff procured a purchaser acceptable to the defendant, and that a sale was consummated, whereupon the defendant expressly promised to pay the plaintiff his commission for procuring the purchaser. No amount was named in the agreement to pay as set forth by the plaintiff, but there was testimony that 2¿ per cent, was the usual rate. The plaintiff's evidence was contradicted by the defendant and there was an allegation that the former acted as broker for both the parties to the transaction without :the] knowledge of the vendor. While (the plaintiff testified on cross-examination that he was broker for both parties, his explanation, if credited, shows that he was not acting for the purchaser with respect to the sale of the house. The question at issue was clearly one of fact with respect to which there w¡a.s evidence sustaining the contention of the plaintiff, and the learned trial judge having found the fact of employment and of the value of the plaintiff's service, and that he was not acting in a double capacity with reference to the sale, that finding has the effect of a verdict of a jury. We cannot therefore sustain the assignments of error.
The judgment it affirmed.