Appeal, No. 100, Jan. T., 1962, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas No. 2 of Philadelphia County, Dec. T., 1957, No. 2742, in case of Benjamin Simon v. H. K. Porter Company. Judgment affirmed.
Francis E. Shields, with him Perter Hearn, and Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz, for appellant.
Herman Moskowitz, for appellee.
Before Bell, C.j., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen and O'brien, JJ.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE COHEN
Plaintiff-appellee, Simon, a real estate broker, brought suit in assumpsit, claiming a broker's commission
by virtue of an oral agreement with appellant that he secure a purchaser for a certain property owned by appellant. At trial, the jury returned a verdict for appellee. Appellant, thereupon, filed motions for a judgment n.o.v. and for a new trial, both of which were denied by the court en banc, and judgment entered. Appellant appeals.
Viewing, as we must, the evidence and inferences in the light most favorable to the verdict winner in our consideration of the motion for judgment n.o.v., the record discloses the following facts:
Appellee was one of several brokers authorized by appellant to secure a purchaser for the particular tract in question, one of several parcels of excess property which appellant had put on the market. Nippes, a vice-president of appellant, had been made general manager in Philadelphia and put in charge of disposing of this real estate. In conjunction with the solicitation of bids, appellant advertised the tract in the Wall Street Journal in July, 1957, stating that "for full information" prospective purchasers were to contact their broker, appellant's agent in New York or Nippes in Philadelphia.
During the early part of 1957, appellee produced several prospects for Nippes, none of whom, however, concluded a deal for the purchase of the property. Appellee then introduced one Perelman who expressed interest in the tract. At a meeting with Perelman and appellee, Nippes agreed to a sale of the property, subject to his approval of Perelman's financial statement.
Perelman's financial statement was submitted by appellee to Nippes who accepted it as satisfactory. At a meeting between the two, Nippes told appellee to have an agreement of sale drawn up between appellant and Perelman, including therein certain reservations which were required by ...