Matolicz v. Hess

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Matolicz v. Hess

87 Pa. Super. 135, 1925 Pa. Super. LEXIS 37

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedNovember 18, 1925

DocketAppeal 259

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 87 Pa. Super. 135 (Matolicz v. Hess) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Matolicz v. Hess, 87 Pa. Super. 135, 1925 Pa. Super. LEXIS 37 (Pa. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Linn, J.,

This judgment, entered for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, cannot be sustained. A real estate broker sued for commissions alleged to have been earned pursuant to a contract to obtain a purchaser ready and willing to purchase real estate of defendant. The affidavit of defense avers that the commission was to be payable only “if a sale was effected” “upon terms satisfactory to” defendant. He admits an averment in the statement to the effect that he executed an agreement of sale to a proposed vendee (procured by plaintiff) for $14,000, of which $2500 was to be paid in cash at the signing of the agreement, but denies that the purchaser made that payment; on the con *137 trary, he avers that the proposed vendee gave him a check for that sum which was presented in dne course and that the bank refused payment, advising that the depositor’s account had been closed. It is also averred that the proposed purchaser was never ready, willing, or able to purchase the land and that no sale had been effected, and that defendant still had the land. Proof of those facts at the trial will of course bar recovery: Keel v. Schadewald, 80 Pa. Superior Ct. 425, 427. If they are true, the proposed vendee never qualified himself to demand performance. Defendant did nothing to interfere with the proposed sale; he was ready to perform; he was in no default.

As defendant avers that plaintiff was to receive no commission unless a sale was effected (compare Simon v. Myers, 284 Pa. 3. see p. 8), the conduct of defendant not having prevented it, the authorities cited by plaintiff to the effect that a broker has earned his commission when he procures a party with whom his principal is satisfied and who actually contracts for the property at a price satisfactory to the owner, have no application at this stage of the case.

The judgment is reversed >and the record is remitted for further proceedings.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion by

Linn, J.,

This judgment, entered for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, cannot be sustained. A real estate broker sued for commissions alleged to have been earned pursuant to a contract to obtain a purchaser ready and willing to purchase real estate of defendant. The affidavit of defense avers that the commission was to be payable only “if a sale was effected” “upon terms satisfactory to” defendant. He admits an averment in the statement to the effect that he executed an agreement of sale to a proposed vendee (procured by plaintiff) for $14,000, of which $2500 was to be paid in cash at the signing of the agreement, but denies that the purchaser made that payment; on the con *137 trary, he avers that the proposed vendee gave him a check for that sum which was presented in dne course and that the bank refused payment, advising that the depositor’s account had been closed. It is also averred that the proposed purchaser was never ready, willing, or able to purchase the land and that no sale had been effected, and that defendant still had the land. Proof of those facts at the trial will of course bar recovery: Keel v. Schadewald, 80 Pa. Superior Ct. 425, 427. If they are true, the proposed vendee never qualified himself to demand performance. Defendant did nothing to interfere with the proposed sale; he was ready to perform; he was in no default.

As defendant avers that plaintiff was to receive no commission unless a sale was effected (compare Simon v. Myers, 284 Pa. 3. see p. 8), the conduct of defendant not having prevented it, the authorities cited by plaintiff to the effect that a broker has earned his commission when he procures a party with whom his principal is satisfied and who actually contracts for the property at a price satisfactory to the owner, have no application at this stage of the case.

The judgment is reversed >and the record is remitted for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 Pa. Super. 135, 1925 Pa. Super. LEXIS 37, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matolicz-v-hess-pasuperct-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack