Brink v. Martin, 33767

Decision Date09 May 1957
Docket NumberNo. 33767,33767
CourtWashington Supreme Court
PartiesGeorge H. BRINK and Dorothy Brink, his wife, Respondents, v. Philip L. MARTIN, doing business as Boulevard Park Realty, Appellant, Sylvia Dordett, Defendant.

Carkeek, Harris, Harris, Myers & Vertrees, Seattle, for appellant.

MacDonald, Hoague & Bayless, Seattle, for respondent.

OTT, Justice.

This is an action instituted by prospective purchasers of real estate to recover damages from a real-estate broker and his agent, alleging negligence in the preparation of an earnest-money receipt and agreement. The cause was tried to the court and, from a judgment in favor of the prospective purchasers, the broker has appealed.

The facts are substantially as follows: The appellant, Philip L. Martin, doing business as the Boulevard Park Realty, had an open listing from the owners of certain residence property located in Seattle.

The respondents George H. Brink and wife were shown the property by Sylvia Dordett, an employee of the appellant. The property was listed to be sold for ten thousand nine hundred fifty dollars. The respondents offered ninety- eight hundred dollars. Sylvia Dordett prepared an earnest-money receipt and agreement, in which the property was described as it was in the listing, '1603 South 128th, Seattle 88, Washington.' The earnest-money receipt and agreement contained the offered purchase price, together with terms for the payment of the balance, after applying five hundred dollars which the respondents tendered by check as the earnest money and down payment. The earnest-money receipt and agreement was signed by the respondents and, later, by the owner and his wife.

The evidence established that the house was upon property which the seller contemplated subdividing, and selling only a portion thereof. At the time the respondents entered into the earnest-money receipt and agreement, there was no metes and bounds description of the area which the purchasers intended to purchase and the sellers intended to sell. The evidence was in dispute as to whether the purchasers knew of the proposed subdivision.

Sylvia Dordett contacted the owners to obtain a legal description, by metes and bounds, of the property to be sold. The owners refused to give such a description. Sylvia Dordett conveyed this information to her employer, Philip L. Martin, at which time he was first apprised of the nature of the description that had been used in the earnest-money receipt and agreement. Appellant, Philip L. Martin, then contacted the owners to obtain a proper legal description. The request was refused.

Thereafter, the respondents, by letter, made demand upon the owners for a legal description of the premises. The owners, through their attorney, again refused, and gave as their reason for refusal the fact that the signed earnest-money receipt and agreement was not an enforcible contract.

The respondents then demanded return of the earnest money from the appellant. The payment was refunded. Some five months later, the owners sold the property...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Village Development Co. v. Filice, s. 6759
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nevada
    • August 27, 1974
    ...action against the employer. Kraft v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 220 Or. 230, 315 P.2d 558, 348 P.2d 239, 248 (1959); Brink v. Martin, 50 Wash.2d 256, 310 P.2d 870, 871 (1957); Spruce v. Wellman, 98 Cal.App.2d 158, 219 P.2d 472, 474--475 (1950); Freeman v. Churchill, 30 Cal.2d 453, 183 P.2d 4, ......
  • Thompson v. Grays Harbor Community Hosp., 5551-1-II
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • December 23, 1983
    ...who causes the injury is free from liability therefor, his employer must also be free from liability." See also, Brink v. Martin, 50 Wash.2d 256, 310 P.2d 870 (1957); Restatement (Second) of Agency § 217B(2) (1958); Annot: Inconsistent Verdict--New Trial, 16 A.L.R.2d 969 (1951). Dr. Thompso......
  • Lien v. Barnett, I-XX
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • August 6, 1990
    ...of action against the Community Chapel cannot be maintained in the absence of liability of its alleged agent. See Brink v. Martin, 50 Wash.2d 256, 310 P.2d 870 (1957). Therefore, only the claims for damages based on loss of consortium and negligent counsel remain on ...
  • Taylor v. Smith, 1214--II
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • April 14, 1975
    ...became the agent of the sellers. Mersky v. Multiple Listing Bureau, Inc., 73 Wash.2d 225, 228, 437 P.2d 897 (1968); Brink v. Martin, 50 Wash.2d 256, 310 P.2d 870 (1957). The question then becomes whether Burnett, pursuant to his agency relationship, had the actual or apparent authority to r......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT