Cochran v. Stevenson

• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: MR. JUSTICE FRAZER:
• Citation: Cochran et al. v. Stevenson, 270 Pa. 125 (Pa. 1921)
• Decision Date: 28 March 1921
• Docket Number: 120
• Parties: Cochran et al. v. Stevenson, Appellant

270 Pa. 125

Cochran et al.

v. Stevenson, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

February 7, 1921.

March 28, 1921.

Argued February 7, 1921.

Appeal, No. 120, Jan. T., 1921, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Delaware Co., June T., 1918, No. 539, on verdict for plaintiffs, in case of Samuel J. Cochran and Archibald A. Cochran v. S. Price Stevenson.

Before MOSCHZISKER, C. J., FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON, SADLER and SCHAFFER, JJ. Affirmed.

A. B. Geary, of Geary & Rankin, for appellant.—Where too many are joined as plaintiffs the suits cannot be maintained: McNulty v. O'Donnell, 27 Pa. Superior Ct. 93; Lockhart v. Power, 2 Watts 371; Pringle v. Gaw, 5 S. & R. 536; McDonald v. Simcox, 98 Pa. 619.

Appellees were not acting for appellant, but for all parties in interest.

The parties to this suit were engaged in a joint venture and appellees were not entitled to recover: Marsh's App., 69 Pa. 30; Lindsey v. Stranahan, 129 Pa. 635; Delp v. Edlis, 190 Pa. 25; Humbird v. Davis, 210 Pa. 311.

Appellees as agents for all interested in the venture acted in bad faith in entering the employ of the purchaser and public policy would bar a recovery: Everhart v. Searle, 71 Pa. 256; Rice v. Davis, 136 Pa. 439; Yeaney v. Keck, 183 Pa. 532; Graham v. Cummings, 208 Pa. 516.

W. Roger Fronefield, for appellees.—Where one party enters into a contract with a second party with reference to a subject-matter in which a third party has an interest, the third party may join in an action for breach thereof, notwithstanding the second party was ignorant of the third party's interest: McCord v. Williams & Love, 2 Ala. 107; Cottingham v. Owens, 71 Ill. 397; Silliman v. Tuttle, 45 Barber (N. Y.) 171.

Where one, without authority to act as agent for another, enters into a contract, either in his own name, or in that of an alleged principal, the party with whom he contracts may elect to consider him as principal and hold him liable on the contract: McCron v. Lady, 10 W. N. C. 493; Wolff v. Wilson, 28 Pa. Superior Ct. 511; Meyer v. Barker, 3 Binney 228; Stiteler v. Ditzenberger, 45 Pa. Superior Ct. 266; Crest v. Jack, 3 Watts 238; Beaty v. Bordwell, 91 Pa. 438; Leslie v. Leonard, 10 Pa. Superior Ct. 548.

OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE FRAZER, March 28, 1921:

Defendant, at the solicitation of plaintiffs, became financially interested, with others, in a tract of land located on the Delaware River, in Eddystone Borough, Delaware County. The property in question had been encumbered with a mortgage held by the Cambridge Trust Company, of the city of Chester, and defendant with others, arranged to finance the purchase of the property at sheriff's sale under foreclosure proceedings and later sell the same at a price they expected would yield a profit. For this purpose, and, under date of July 5, 1912, an agreement was entered into between J. K. Nicholls, of the first part, and defendant and Oscar Stevenson, of the second part, reciting the purchase of the property by Nicholls at sheriff sale, the amount of money to be furnished by each, that the deed for the property from the sheriff should be made to the Cambridge Trust Company, that a first mortgage of $40,000 should be created on the land and that it should be resold within one year at private sale, or thereafter at public sale, and the proceeds distributed in a manner stated. Out of such proceeds plaintiffs were to receive "a sum of $5,000 due them from said party of the first part" for services rendered in procuring defendant's assistance in financing the purchase, also two per cent of the purchase money received upon sale of the property "for commissions and expenses of making the sale of said premises or any part thereof, whether said sale be made by them or others," plaintiffs being thus made the exclusive agents for the sale of the land. No dispute exists as to the foregoing provisions of the agreement. Plaintiffs, however, claim extra compensation for special services rendered at the request of defendant for the handling of various matters in connection with the property, amounting in all to $2,125. To recover that amount this action was begun, a verdict was rendered in favor of plaintiffs, judgment entered thereon, and defendant appealed.

The contention that a joint action by plaintiffs is not maintainable is untenable. Plaintiffs were brothers; Samuel J. was engaged as a real estate broker, and Archibald A., an attorney-at-law, the former attending to the "field work" and the latter giving his attention to office matters, such as letter writing, drawing of contracts, and advising generally as to questions of a legal nature arising in the course of the partnership business. He also attended meetings in connection with the sales of the property referred to. The bill for the services in dispute was rendered in the joint names of plaintiffs and correspondence in regard to the claim recognized both as interested in the matter. In the written agreement the names of both plaintiffs were inserted as the persons to whom compensation was due. Under these circumstances had one of the plaintiffs brought suit alone, defendant might well have taken the position that the other was a necessary party to the proceedings to secure a valid judgment and be conclusive of the entire controversy. The trial judge submitted to the jury the question of plaintiffs' joint interest and, while it is true he intimated strongly that the question was a mere technical one and of minor importance, we fail to see that his remarks prejudiced defendant, especially as both the written and oral evidence in the case tended to show plaintiffs were jointly interested in the matter.

The argument that the work done by plaintiffs was for the benefit of all the parties interested in the scheme to acquire and resell the property and that no recovery could be had against defendant alone, raises a clear issue of fact which was properly submitted to the jury. Evidence was adduced that defendant requested plaintiffs to perform the various services for which claim is now made and we...