The opinion of the court was delivered by: KALODNER
This action was brought by the plaintiffs, Walter K. Hardt and J. Stanley Hartzell, residents of Philadelphia, against the defendant, Heller Brothers Company, a New Jersey corporation, to recover compensation for services on a quantum meruit basis.
Two questions are presented for determination: (1) Are the plaintiffs entitled to recovery and (2) the extent of recovery, if allowed.
A jury trial was waived, and the case was submitted upon the pleadings and testimony adduced by both parties.
After consideration of the pleadings and the evidence, I make the following
1. Defendant is a New Jersey corporation.
2. Plaintiffs are individuals residing in Philadelphia.
3. The amount involved in the controversy is in excess of $ 3,000, exclusive of costs and interest.
4. There is a diversity of citizenship between the parties.
5. For many years defendant has been and still is engaged in the business of manufacturing rasps, files, tools and other steel products.
6. Sometime prior to February, 1941, the defendant corporation decided to expand its manufacturing activities.
7. The expansion program contemplated both war work and post war work.
8. In order to carry out this expansion program it was necessary that the defendant corporation obtain from the Federal government a Certificate of Necessity in the amount of $ 1,500,000.
9. Walter Heller is the treasurer of the defendant company and has been for the past fifteen years.
10. Walter Heller was duly authorized to do all things necessary to effectuate the expansion program and to employ others for that purpose in the course of such activity.
11. Arthur H. Hunter, assistant to the president of the defendant company and one of its operating and production personnel, was placed in charge of the expansion program and authorized to procure persons to perform services necessary to achieve the accomplishment of this expansion program and particularly to secure a Certificate of necessity.
12. The defendant held out Hunter as an officer and director of the defendant corporation.
13. Prior to February, 1941, Hunter, with the defendant's knowledge and consent, employed a firm in New York known as the Executive Engineers to obtain a Certificate of Necessity.
14. Executive Engineers failed in their efforts to obtain a Certificate of Necessity.
15. On or about February 10, 1941, Hunter met the plaintiffs at the Union League Club in Philadelphia, and requested them to perform services for the defendant in and about the procuring of a Certificate of Necessity in the amount of $ 1,500,000.
16. On or about February 17, 1941, plaintiffs met with Hunter, Walter Heller and other representatives of the defendant company in Newark, N.J., at the place of business of defendant company.
17. At the aforesaid meeting Walter Heller requested the plaintiffs to perform services for the defendant, and to undertake the task of obtaining a Certificate of Necessity in the amount of $ 1,500,000 for the defendant.
18. Plaintiffs accepted the employment at the said meeting in Newark, New Jersey, and agreed to perform the services.
19. Simultaneously plaintiffs requested an advance for expenses.
20. Walter Heller at the said time and place stated to the plaintiff's that it would be satisfactory even if the expenses amounted to $ 100,000, and that in addition to ...