56 Pa. Super. 522 | Pa. Super. Ct. | 1914
Opinion by
The plaintiff, a real estate broker, seeks to recover certain commissions alleged to be due him by reason of the sale of certain real estate of the defendant. In such a case the plaintiff must show not only the existence of the relation of principal and agent between himself and the owner, but must further show that his services as such agent were the effective cause of bringing about the sale. Ordinarily this question would be one of fact to be determined by a jury. There is, however, in such case the usual preliminary question of law to be determined by the court, namely, whether or not there is any evidence to justify the submission of that question to the jury and to support a finding by them favorable to the plaintiff.
In the case at bar there is no- difficulty as to the first proposition. It is conceded that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant to make a sale for him of a large tract of land in the state of North Carolina. The plaintiff secured a prospective purchaser in the person of one Painter. He, with a man named Scott, was the owner of an apartment house in the city of Camden. An agreement was entered into involving the sale and exchange of these properties. The agreement, however, was conditioned on the ability of the defendant to establish that he could exhibit a good title to an acreage agreed on and specified. Painter went south to satisfy himself as to these important matters. . After one or more trips, he determined the defendant could not deliver a marketable title to anything like the acreage he
At the conclusion of the trial the learned trial judge was asked to direct a verdict for the defendant on the ground there was no evidence to submit to the jury to warrant a finding that the services of Lamb had been the inducing and effective cause resulting in the sale. The prayer for a binding direction was refused. Following a verdict for the plaintiff, the court in banc was requested to enter judgment for the defendant non obstante veredicto, but the rule was discharged and judgment entered on the verdict.
We are not concerned with the very sharp contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses exhibited by the record. We must regard as established every fact supported by the plaintiff’s evidence and' every favorable inference that might reasonably be drawn therefrom. As we have stated, there is no dispute but that the defendant placed his property in the hands of the plaintiff broker for sale, nor is there any question as to the amount of the commissions the plaintiff is entitled to receive, if he may recover at all. There is evidence to support every fact herein previously noted. It was through no fault of the plaintiff that the sale and exchange first negotiated with Painter & Scott fell through^ It is equally true that the owner was without blame in that his title proved unsatisfactory to the purchaser because the agreement was so expressly conditioned. The plaintiff had no cause of action thence arising and in no way rests his claim upon the services there rendered. But the property still remained in his hands for sale. Through channels entirely unknown to the owner, he was able to produce a new purchaser with a bona fide offer to buy the property. When Painter laid that offer before Lamb, the defendant’s agent, had the latter gone in person to the owner and thus brought him into contact with Smith, it could hardly be doubted that if a sale resulted, the plaintiff would be entitled to his commission. Is the situation so far changed, merely because Lamb directed Painter to go to the owner instead of' going himself, that the court below should have declared, as matter of law, there was no evidence to submit to a jury tending to prove that Lamb’s agency was the effective cause of the sale which ultimately followed? We cannot think so.
There is no occasion, as we view it, to here advert to
Judgment affirmed.