Appeal from judgment of Court of Common Pleas, Trial Division, of Philadelphia, Dec. T., 1966, No. 2180, in case of Samuel Wachter v. Joseph Luria and Leon Luria.
Jay D. Barsky, for appellant.
Michael H. Egnal, with him Egnal and Egnal, for appellee.
Wright, P. J., Watkins, Jacobs, Hoffman, Spaulding, Cercone, and Packel, JJ. Opinion by Cercone, J. Spaulding, J., concurs in the result.
[ 224 Pa. Super. Page 97]
This case is companion to that of Luria v. Robbins, 223 Pa. Superior Ct. 456 (1973), with which it was consolidated for trial and in which we also have this day filed an opinion.
Plaintiff, Samuel Wachter, the real estate agent who negotiated the transaction which was the subject matter of that companion case, filed this suit in assumpsit to secure the sum of $10,000 which he alleged defendants
[ 224 Pa. Super. Page 98]
Joseph Luria and Leon Luria had agreed to pay him if he would negotiate for them the purchase of the Moorestown Shopping Center property on certain alleged terms.
The trial judge found that the defendants had agreed to pay plaintiff for his services and that they were bound by the agreement to pay him. The judge decided, however, that the amount agreed upon was not clear and therefore a reasonable amount, which he set at $3,000, was payable by defendants to plaintiff. Plaintiff filed exceptions which were dismissed by the court en banc consisting of one judge who, after overruling the trial judge's findings, held Wachter was not entitled to any commission because no binding agreement existed between purchaser and vendor. This appeal by plaintiff followed.
It is our determination that the court en banc erred in overruling the trial judge's findings that the defendants had employed plaintiff, had agreed to compensate him for his services, and were liable to him for his services. The holding of the court en banc is not supported by the record or by law.
As we determined in the companion case of Luria v. Robbins, supra, the trial judge's finding of a binding parol agreement for the purchase of the shopping center property by the Lurias must be upheld, there being ample evidence to support it. Plaintiff, the real estate agent employed by the Lurias to secure that agreement, is therefore entitled to his commission on that transaction even though the Lurias refused to consummate it: Schamberg v. Kahn, 279 Pa. 477 (1924); Wilson v. Hays, 283 Pa. 271 (1925).
There is no dispute in the evidence that the Lurias did in fact employ Wachter to act as their agent in this transaction; that they and not the vendors agreed to pay him his commission; that plaintiff Wachter ...