Appeal from judgment of Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division, of Allegheny County, April T., 1970, No. 1905, in case of Yola Mae Scally v. Alex L. Josselson and Foremost Mortgage Service Co., a corporation, and Foremost Financial Consultants, Inc., a corporation.
Robert S. Daniels, with him Alter, Wright & Barron, for appellants.
Leonard M. Mendelson, with him William R. Grove, Jr., and Hollinshead and Mendelson, for appellee.
Wright, P. J., Jacobs, Hoffman, Spaulding, Cercone, and Packel, JJ. (Watkins, J., absent.) Dissenting Opinion by Cercone, J.
[ 224 Pa. Super. Page 309]
Dissenting Opinion by Cercone, J.
This is an action of assumpsit brought by plaintiff Yola Mae Scally, a licensed real estate broker, against defendant, Alex L. Josselson, a licensed real estate salesman, and his two corporations. The corporate entities were properly disregarded by the lower court under the facts of this case. Mrs. Scally sued for commissions
[ 224 Pa. Super. Page 310]
which she alleges to have earned as a result of an oral contract made between her and the defendant and which was breached by him. A verdict was returned in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $45,000 and defendant appeals on grounds of error by the lower court in refusing to admit certain evidence.
At trial plaintiff Scally testified that officials of the Monsour Hospital had asked her to help them secure financing necessary for expanding the facilities of the hospital. Plaintiff was referred to defendant Josselson as the person who might be able to procure this financial assistance. At a meeting at which plaintiff, defendant, and hospital representatives were present, the financial needs of the hospital were discussed. Plaintiff contends that after the hospital officials left the meeting, she and defendant agreed to a "co-brokering" or splitting of commissions in the event defendant was successful in securing financing for this project. The defendant on the other hand contends that no contract was made between them. Defendant further contends that nothing resulted from the first meeting with the hospital officials and in April 1968 all papers were returned by the defendant to the hospital and the matter was considered closed; that after an hiatus of approximately six months a new approach was made to the defendant by the Monsour Hospital which then ...