Girts v. Shaw

Superior Court of Pennsylvania July 10, 1918

Girts v. Shaw, 70 Pa. Super. 345 (1918)

1918 Pa. Super. LEXIS 247

Head, Henderson, Kephart, Orlady, Por, Ter, Trexler, Williams

Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Williams, J.,

This was an action to recover a real estate broker’s commission.

, Defendant was the owner of certain real estate which was sold to the Knights of Malta by plaintiffs for $6,500.

Plaintiffs’ evidence was that defendant had agreed to pay the usual broker’s commission of three per cent. *348Defendant denied this and testified that he dealt with plaintiffs as agents of the Knights of Malta and the agreement was that the $6,500 was to be net. The jury found for plaintiffs. From the judgment entered on the verdict we have this appeal.

There is no merit in the first assignment as there was other testimony of the usual commission in evidence without objection at the time the evidence objected to was admitted.

There is no reversible error in the charge. The jury were properly told they might find for plaintiffs if an agreement to pay the commission had been made with the knowledge of the fact that plaintiffs represented vendee: Mitchell v. Schreiner, 43 Pa. Superior Ct. 633.

The judgment is affirmed.

Reference

Cited By: 1 case
Status: Published
Syllabus: Beal estate brokers — Principal and agent — Commissions—Serving two masters. A real estate broker may recover commissions from tbe vendor wbo bad agreed to pay him tbe commissions with full knowledge of tbe fact tbat tbe broker also represented the vendee. In such a case where tbe court has admitted testimony without objection as to tbe usual rate of brokers’ commissions, it is not reversible error to permit another witness to testify as to tbe rate of commissions.