Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

WILLIAM I. MIRKIL COMPANY v. GAYLON (11/13/70)

decided: November 13, 1970.

WILLIAM I. MIRKIL COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
GAYLON



Appeal from order of Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, No. 63-10511 of 1963, in case of William I. Mirkil Company v. Robert Gaylon et ux.

COUNSEL

Edward H. Fackenthal, with him Franklin H. Spitzer, and Henderson, Wetherill & O'Hey, and Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen, for appellant.

Roger B. Reynolds, with him Russell J. Brownback, for appellees.

Wright, P. J., Watkins, Montgomery, Jacobs, Hoffman, Spaulding, and Cercone, JJ. Dissenting Opinion by Hoffman, J. Montgomery and Cercone, JJ., join in this dissenting opinion.

Author: Per Curiam

[ 217 Pa. Super. Page 402]

Order affirmed.

Disposition

Order affirmed.

Dissenting Opinion by Hoffman, J.:

In 1959, at the request of the then owners, appellant (a real estate brokerage firm) secured tenants to occupy adjoining parcels of land in Montgomery County. The large parcel was leased for a term of one year beginning on December 1, 1959, with rent payable in monthly installments. The other parcel was subject to a similar lease commencing November 1, 1959. Each lease contained provisions obligating the lessor-owners to pay appellant leasing commissions during the initial rental period and all renewals for its services in securing the lease.*fn1

[ 217 Pa. Super. Page 403]

In February, 1960, appellees purchased both parcels. From the time of the purchase until the Fall of 1960 appellees collected the rents and paid appellant the commissions provided by the lease. Prior to the expiration of the first year terms pursuant to appellee's request, the leases were terminated. Appellees then proceeded to negotiate new leases with the same tenants. Appellant was not mentioned in either of the new leases, nor has it been paid any commissions since termination of the original leases.

Appellant filed a complaint in assumpsit seeking commissions for the remainder of the original lease term and for any renewals. Preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer were filed and sustained by the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.