Appeal, No. 144, Oct. T., 1961, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas No. 4 of Philadelphia County, Sept. T., 1958, No. 2983, in case of Aron Colish v. Morris Goldstein. Judgment affirmed; reargument refused September 29, 1961.
F. Hastings Griffin, Jr., with him George J. Miller, and Barnes, Dechert, Price, Myers & Rhoads, for appellant.
Charles M. Solomon, with him Franklin A. Wurman, and Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, for appellee.
Before Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ. (rhodes, P.j., absent).
[ 196 Pa. Super. Page 189]
This is an appeal by the defendant in an assumpsit action from a judgment for $1500 entered against him in favor of an architect after a trial before a judge without a jury. The appellant asks for judgment n.o.v., or in lieu thereof, a new trial.
The evidence establishes that Morris Goldstein, the defendant, purchased a tract of land along City Line Avenue, Philadelphia, for the purpose of erecting an office building thereon. He was told that Aaron Colish, an architect, "might do [him] some good."
Thereupon, he telephoned Colish, who took him to lunch and discussed with him the construction of a building on the premises which he had purchased.
[ 196 Pa. Super. Page 190]
Colish showed him a colored rendering which Colish had prepared for another client who was considering the erection of a building on the same premises, discussed the general area and showed him an aerial map of it, discussed the zoning requirements and suggested that changes unfavorable to the erection of an office building were contemplated, discussed the cost of the building, which was to be approximately $1,500,000, and an architect's fee which was to be $100,000, advised him that the dimensions of the lot which he had bought included half of two streets and that the usable part was not as large as Goldstein had thought it was, and discussed other similar matters. Colish lent the colored rendering and the aerial map to Goldstein to show to prospective partners and tenants. The map was subsequently used in a brochure with which Goldstein hoped to obtain tenants for his proposed building.
A short time later, Colish saw Goldstein on the premises and further discussed the building with him. Later, after Goldstein had employed another architect to construct the building, Colish asked for the return of his exhibits and sent a bill to Goldstein for $5500 itemized as follows: $1000 for color rendering of proposed building; $1000 for illustrated and developed aerial view of City Line showing proposed building; $3000 for use of aerial view of City Line in brochure, and $500 for consultation time-- 2 hours at $250 per hour. Goldstein returned the aerial view, and refused to pay Colish, who then brought suit. It is not clear what happened to the colored rendering.
After receiving the testimony, the court below concluded that Colish had rendered services and furnished exhibits for which he should be paid. The court considered the value of these to be less than ...