*1 175 Margaret HOUSING, INC., and FAIR SUBURBAN Collins, Appellants, Hill

v. REALTORS, OF BOARD COUNTY DELAWARE Appellee. Pennsylvania. Supreme Court Argued Nov. 1974. 3, 1975.

Decided Oct. *2 Sayre, Philadelphia, Robert W. Lawhorne, Edward S. Fitzgerald, Saul, David B. Norristown, appellants; for Ewing, Saul, Philadelphia, Remick & of counsel.

Stephen Smith, Upper Darby, S. appellee. for Before O’BRIEN, EAGEN, ROB- POMEROY, ERTS, MANDERINO, NIX and JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT MANDERINO, Justice. appellants,

The Inc., Fair Housing, Suburban and Mar- garet Collins, Hill real estate brokers in licensed Penn- sylvania, complaint against appellee, filed a Delaware County complaint alleged Board of Realtors. The appellee multiple listing “maintains service for the members,” exclusive use of its appellants, and that who engaged were brokerage the real estate with business Pennsylvania, Montgomery County, had been offices County Board membership Delaware denied appel- alleged complaint further Realtors. appellee membership in the board’s lants had been denied being service, a result of de- multiple listing that as great membership, loss had “sustained nied such such profits,” sustain “continue to sales and would injunction mandatory or- requested Appellants loss.” dering appellee to member- to admit board membership alternative, ship or, in the board multiple listing maintained service appel- filing appellee’s answer, Following the board. citing pleadings Collins judgment lants moved for Realtors, 452 Pa. v. Main Line Board of appellants’ but was denied (1973). The motion appel- judgment pleadings on the entered favor was *3 appeal lee. This followed. alleged in the facts almost identical to those

On multiple present list complaint, Collins, supra, that held ing practices organization estate brokers an of real partici operated from which broker to exclude licensed unreasonable, per pation multiple listing are, se, in the Appellants and contend an unlawful restraint of trade. case, trial court that and that the Collins controls this Appellee improperly judgment against entered them. that essential difference between contends there is one alleged case. in in facts this Collins and facts ap according significant to the The difference, which is alleged appellants not pellee, that in case is this have they operate geographical that in area covered appellants appellee Appellee that contends board. since County, alleged Montgomery were in that their offices membership they complain or right no about have to appellee board, practices whose multiple listing of the Del membership any not outside does include brokers County. aware appellee’s argument language is in based Col-

lins, supra, stating by that all real estate brokers licensed Pennsylvania, good standing op- law, state under erating by organization engaging the area covered multiple practices listing membership were entitled to organization in the or in the alternative were entitled participate multiple listing Appellee in the service. con- required tends that under Collins were to al- lege they “operated that by ap- area” covered pellee board, they allege, that failed to so and thus were agree. not entitled to relief. We cannot may It that real Pennsyl- be estate broker licensed vania, business, who no does not does intend to do business, particular doing nothing in a area would be asking by advisory opinion more than a court for an complaining about an unreasonable restraint trade by organization caused an does not which affect the com- plaining any way. That, broker in however, is not the Appellants alleged they case before us. have main- Montgomery County judi- tain which, offices we can cially notice, adjacent County. is located to Delaware alleged They sustained, have also have will sustain, great profits. Ap- continue to loss of sales and pellants strangers, geographically are not therefore or otherwise, multiple listing practices to the board. may

While it be true that a broker who is unaf by *4 practices particular competitive business in a fected may complaint, area have no it does that not follow those persons maintaining county an in one have no rea office complain practices adjoining son to an of business county. County any lines have not been out on ra laid study tional basis derived from a of natural real estate buying people. Indeed, selling or real estate habits of county the County Montgomery lines of Delaware and County years ago, were determined no doubt based on totally foreign factors to the the economic realities of today. The it brokerage business as real estate exists appellants, against based judgment pleadings the on the Montgom- solely is on the that their office located fact Del- ery operates County appellee board whereas the judgment on artificial bounda- is a based aware County, competitive in the busi- naturally areas ries unrelated to selling buying estate. ness of and real im pleadings judgment the was Although on appellees, di cannot we properly entered of the behalf on of pleadings favor entry judgment the a on rect the alleges that the appellants. complaint the The listing exclu multiple for a service “maintains board an essential members, which is a service sive use of its major provides the part estate business the real is estate business source of income in real (cid:127) participating Until great members.” value to those exactly nothing to indicate is received, is there evidence listing practices cannot multiple are. We what these iden practices are assume, record, without prac not, Collins, if or are tical to those We restraint of trade. an unreasonable tices constitute pleadings issued judgment therefore vacate opportuni to an are entitled trial court. ty prove allegations. to their pro- for

Judgment matter remanded vacated and pay opinion. party to Each ceedings this consistent with own costs. dissenting opinion in which

ROBERTS, J., filed O’BRIEN, J., joined. ROBERTS, (dissenting). Justice by expressed Chief Justice I the view adhere Line Board dissenting opinion in v. Main Collins *5 Realtors, 342, 358, (1973), 452 Pa. 493, joined. therein, I For I which the reasons stated dissent today’s from decision. O’BRIEN, J., join dissenting in this

opinion.

344 A.2d 483 Pennsylvania COMMONWEALTH v. LEWIS, Appellant.

Edward Supreme Pennsylvania. Court of

Argued 9, April 1974.

Decided Oct. 1975.