Bigham v. Linville

• Decision Date: 05 May 1913
• Citation: 170 Mo. App. 354,156 S.W. 713
• Parties: BIGHAM et al. v. LINVILLE.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

156 S.W. 713

170 Mo. App. 354

BIGHAM et al. v. LINVILLE.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

May 5, 1913.

1. BROKERS (§ 53) — ACTION FOR COMMISSIONS — PROCURING CAUSE.

In an action for broker's commissions, it is not sufficient that he prove that his act was one of a chain of causes producing the contract, but the burden is on him to show that he was the procuring cause of the exchange.

2. BROKERS (§ 52) — RIGHT TO COMMISSIONS.

A broker, in order to recover commissions, is not bound to show that he conducted the negotiations to a successful end, but it is sufficient that he has found and introduced to his principal a person who is ready, willing, and able to purchase the property or make the proposed exchange on terms satisfactory to the principal.

3. BROKERS (§ 88) — ACTION FOR COMMISSIONS — PERFORMANCE OF ENGAGEMENT — QUESTION FOR JURY.

In an action by brokers to recover commissions, evidence held to justify submission to the

jury of the question whether they were the procuring cause of the exchange.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Buchanan County; W. K. Amick, Judge.

Action by B. B. Bigham and others against J. M. Linville. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

B. Raleigh Martin, of St. Joseph, for appellant. Louis Stigall, of St. Joseph, for respondents.

JOHNSON, J.

Action to recover a real estate broker's commission. Verdict and judgment were for plaintiffs. Defendant appealed and argues that the court erred in not sustaining his demurrer to the evidence. His precise point is that the evidence shows, as a matter of law, that plaintiffs were not the efficient and procuring cause of the sale. There is no controversy over the facts that defendant employed plaintiffs to effect a sale or exchange of certain real estate owned by him in St. Joseph, and that subsequently an exchange of the property was made by defendant.

The burden is on the plaintiffs to show that they were the procuring cause of the exchange. The rule thus is stated in Ramsey v. West, 31 Mo. App. 676: "The broker must be the procuring cause of the contract on which he depends for his recovery. It will not suffice for his act to be one of the chain of causes producing the contract, for it must be the procuring or inducing cause; or, as it has been said, it must be the cause causans." Mead v. Arnold, 131 Mo. App. 214, 110 S. W. 656; Real Estate Co. v. Real Estate Co., 144 Mo. App. 620, 129 S. W. 419; Crain v. Miles, 154 Mo. App. 338, 134 S. W. 52.

This rule does not...