C. Robert Peter & Co. v. Fix
| Decision Date | 22 June 1928 |
| Citation | 7 S.W.2d 1040,225 Ky. 198 |
| Parties | C. ROBERT PETER & CO. v. FIX. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Common Pleas Branch First Division.
Action by C. Robert Peter & Co. against Dr. C. C. Fix. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Mark Beauchamp, of Louisville, for appellant.
Joseph J. Hancock, of Louisville, for appellee.
The appellant and plaintiff below, C. Robert Peter & Co., a corporation, is engaged in the real estate business in Louisville, including that of brokers in effecting sales of real property. The appellee and defendant below, Dr. C. C Fix, owned a building at 1060 South Eighteenth street, which on or about January 14, 1927, he sold to Dr. J. W. Craddock for the sum of $10,000 and other considerations not necessary to now mention. This action was filed by plaintiff against defendant in the Jefferson circuit court to recover against him a judgment for $500 as alleged commissions due plaintiff from defendant for services rendered to him by it in making the sale to Dr. Craddock, and as grounds for the recovery it was alleged in the petition that defendant had placed his property in the hands of plaintiff for sale with the agreement to pay the commissions sued for. The answer was a denial of all material averments of the petition, and at the close of plaintiff's testimony the court sustained defendant's motion for a peremptory instruction in his favor, and from the judgment based upon such directed verdict plaintiff prosecutes this appeal.
The substance of the testimony heard at the trial was: That some time in the latter part of December, 1926, Dr. Craddock and his wife went to the office of plaintiff in Louisville for the purpose of consulting it with reference to a piece of property on West Market street owned by Dr. Moser and which Craddock contemplated purchasing if satisfactory terms could be made. Both it and the property of the defendant, Dr. Fix had been recommended to Craddock as suitable for a location for the practice of his profession of a physician, he theretofore having resided in Munfordville but was preparing to move to Louisville. Taking the testimony of plaintiff's vice president for the purpose of testing the correctness of the court's ruling in giving the peremptory instruction, he testified that at the time his company did not have the property of defendant listed for sale, but that Craddock inquired of him about the value of the Moser property, and some other matters connected therewith, and that some time during the conversation witness suggested that Dr. Fix had recently purchased property in a different part of the city and probably his property on Eighteenth street could be purchased and would be acceptable to Craddock; that thereupon he called Dr.
Fix over the telephone, and in the presence of Craddock, and arranged for a meeting between those two, and in which defendant stated to him, in substance, that if a sale was effected "he would take care of me as an agent." Craddock then left and went back to his home in Munfordville. But prior to that time he had discussed the matter of his purchasing property in the city with his friend, Dr. Casper, who had an office in the Starks building in the city, as did also his friend Dr. Hester.
On January 5, plaintiff sent its representative to Dr. Fix and obtained from him a written proposition to sell his property for a total consideration of $12,500, $6,500 of which was to be cash and $6,000 was to be the assumption of a mortgage on the property. Certain provisions were contained therein with reference to the payment of taxes and when possession was to be given. There was also inserted an agreement to pay defendant commissions for the sale if effected thereunder and there was then appended this sentence: "This proposition is good until 6 p. m. January 9, 1927." There was printed thereon a blank acceptance, but it was never signed by any one, nor was that proposition ever presented to Dr. Craddock. Neither did defendant through any of its officers or agents ever write or telephone Craddock; but plaintiff's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Owens v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co.
... ... Grant v. Dalton, (Me.) 114 A. 304, 305; Bodine ... v. Penn Lumber Company, (Ark.) 194 S.W. 226; Peter & ... Company v. Fix, (Ky.) 7 S.W.2d 1040; Pagum v. White, ... (Mass.) 156 N.E. 711; Good v. Robinson, (Mo.) ... 184 S.W. 955; Price v ... Grant v ... Dalton, 120 Me. 350, 114 A. 304; Bodine v. Lumber ... Co., 128 Ark. 347, 194 S.W. 226; C. Robert Peter & ... Co. v. Fix, 225 Ky. 198, 7 S.W.2d 1040; Pagum v ... White, 259 Mass. 437, 156 N.E. 711; Good v ... Robinson, 194 Mo.App. 453, ... ...
-
Smith v. Treacy
...a limitation as to time in which to sell, and failure had occurred within the time limit. The rule is also announced in Peter & Co. v. Fix, 225 Ky. 198, 7 S.W.2d 1040, where we found from facts that the sale was made in faith after abandonment of efforts by the broker, and in Honaker v. Owe......
-
TEC Corp. v. Nuclear Dynamics, Inc.
...denied, Bass v. Foster, Ky., 476 S.W.2d 181 (1972); Reedy v. Beauchamp, 307 Ky. 409, 412, 211 S.W.2d 393 (1948); C. Robert Peter & Co. v. Fix, 225 Ky. 198, 7 S.W.2d 1040 (1928), unless there is evidence of an intention to deal around the broker and defer the sale until a time in which the c......
-
TEC CORPORATION v. Nuclear Dynamics, Inc., Civ. A. No. 1574.
...denied, Bass v. Foster, Ky., 476 S.W.2d 181 (1972); Reedy v. Beauchamp, 307 Ky. 409, 412, 211 S.W.2d 393 (1948); C. Robert Peter & Co. v. Fix, 225 Ky. 198, 7 S.W.2d 1040 (1928), unless there is evidence of an intention to deal around the broker and defer the sale until a time in which the c......