Opinion
November 12, 1959.
December 17, 1959.
Real Estate Brokers — Commissions — Representation that commission would not be charged upon construction price — Authority of agent — Questions of fact for jury.
1. In an action of assumpsit to recover the amount of a commission alleged to have been falsely charged and obtained from plaintiffs by defendant, a real estate broker, in which it appeared that plaintiffs purchased a lot, and that the agreement of sale and the deed provided that a dwelling house was to be erected upon the lot by a particular construction company; that plaintiffs averred that, although defendant's sales agent represented to them that there would be no commission charged upon the construction and cost of the dwelling, the price charged by the construction company to plaintiffs for the construction of the dwelling included the sum of money in question as a commission, which had been added to the construction cost and paid to defendant; and that the court below concluded, under the evidence, that the questions whether the sales agent made the alleged representation to plaintiffs and whether the agent had authority to make such representation, were questions for the jury, which rendered a verdict for plaintiffs; it was Held that the order of the court below refusing defendant's motion for judgment n.o.v. should be affirmed.
Practice — New trial — Newspaper article — Reference to prior disposition of case — Arbitration proceeding.
2. Where it appeared that during the questioning of a witness it was disclosed that the case had previously been before a board of arbitrators; that there appeared in the local newspaper a short statement concerning the case on trial, in which it was set forth that the arbitrators had made a finding in favor of plaintiff; that a motion to withdraw a juror and continue the case because some members of the jury had read the article was refused, and the jury was instructed that they should totally disregard anything concerning the case other than that which they had heard from the witness stand; and that the court below concluded that the reading of the article was not so prejudicial as to warrant the granting of a new trial; it was Held that the order of the court below refusing a new trial should be affirmed.
Before RHODES, P.J., HIRT, GUNTHER, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, ERVIN, and WATKINS, JJ.
Appeal, No. 105, April T., 1959, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Butler County, June T., 1959, No. 164, in case of Constantine L. Passarelli et ux. v. Carl E. Shields, trading and doing business as Carl E. Shields Company, Realtors. Order affirmed.
Same case in court below: 19 Pa. D. C. 2d 66.
Assumpsit. Before GRAFF, P.J., specially presiding.
Verdict for plaintiffs and judgment entered thereon. Defendant appealed.
Lee C. McCandless, for appellant.
William C. Robinson, and Henninger Robinson, for appellees.
Submitted November 12, 1959.
The order of the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County is affirmed on the opinion of Judge GRAFF, President Judge of the 33rd Judicial District, specially presiding for the court below, reported at 19 Pa. D. C. 2d 66.