Casey v. Jones

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtJONES
Citation410 So.2d 5
Decision Date11 December 1981
PartiesJ. W. CASEY v. Mildred J. JONES. 80-276.

Page 5

410 So.2d 5
J. W. CASEY
v.
Mildred J. JONES.
80-276.
Supreme Court of Alabama.
Dec. 11, 1981.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 19, 1982.

Page 6

James W. Garrett, Jr. of Rushton, Stakely, Johnston & Garrett, Montgomery, for appellant.

Jere L. Beasley of Beasley & Wilson, Montgomery, for appellee.

JONES, Justice.

This is a contract action based on an alleged "oral listing" agreement to sell real estate. On several occasions, and over a period of years, Defendant had listed property with Plaintiff under an oral agreement giving Plaintiff permission to list, show, and sell property from which Defendant would receive a "net" amount and Plaintiff would receive a commission. Up to the time of this transaction, Plaintiff had sold a total of 67.5 acres for Defendant and had obtained the net amount required by Defendant on each sale.

The property which is the basis of this action is a 2,600-acre tract of timberland near Tuskegee, Alabama, known as the Huddleston-Wadsworth tract. During a trip to see another piece of land, Defendant pointed out the Huddleston-Wadsworth property to Plaintiff. The parties' versions of the events following Plaintiff's introduction to the Huddleston property are completely contradictory. Plaintiff maintains that Defendant informed her that, even though the property was tied up in an option, he would give her an oral, nonexclusive listing on the property with an asking price of $600 per acre and a "bottom" sales price of $550 per acre; and, although Defendant wanted a net of $550 per acre, there was no agreement of nonpayment of commission if the property sold for $550 per acre. A Georgia real estate salesman, with whom Plaintiff had a subagency agreement, obtained Georgia-Pacific as a prospect for the Huddleston Property.

Plaintiff maintains that 1) Defendant specifically authorized her to show the Huddleston property at the expiration of the option; 2) she supplied Georgia-Pacific with maps and other information relating to the property supplied to her by Defendant; 3) Defendant told her to go ahead with the sale to Georgia-Pacific; and 4) although it

Page 7

was mutually agreeable that Georgia-Pacific concluded its negotiations through a third party, Defendant continued to agree to pay Plaintiff a 5% commission if the land sold to Georgia-Pacific.

Subsequent to these negotiations, but prior to the final sale, Defendant withdrew all authority from Plaintiff to list any of his property or to "show, sell or take any action in connection with any of his land." Plaintiff responded with a letter reminding Defendant that she and her sub-agent had procured Georgia-Pacific as a prospective buyer and that, if the property ultimately sold to Georgia-Pacific, Defendant owed them the 5% commission on the sale. After the sale, Plaintiff instituted this action against Defendant.

The jury returned a verdict for the Plaintiff and judgment was entered. Defendant's motion for a new trial was granted. A second jury trial and verdict for Plaintiff resulted in the verdict's being set aside on Defendant's motion for a new trial because of improper jury argument. A third trial resulted in a jury verdict for the Plaintiff...

To continue reading

Request your trial
55 practice notes
  • Black Belt Wood Co., Inc. v. Sessions
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 3 Octubre 1986
    ...verdict (JNOV). The standard for testing a motion for directed verdict is identical to that for testing a motion for JNOV. Casey v. Jones, 410 So.2d 5 (Ala.1981). Both motions test the sufficiency of the evidence. Wright v. Fountain, 454 So.2d 520 (Ala.1984). These motions should be denied ......
  • Gulf States Paper Corp. v. Hawkins
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 22 Diciembre 1983
    ...testing a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is identical to that for testing a motion for directed verdict. Casey v. Jones, 410 So.2d 5, 8 (Ala.1981). Consequently, our review of the trial court's failure to grant Gulf States' motion for directed verdict at the close of the ev......
  • Star Freight, Inc. v. Sheffield
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 6 Septiembre 1991
    ...raised by motion for a new trial, and measured by the more subjective "palpably wrong, manifestly unjust" standard.' Casey v. Jones, 410 So.2d 5, 8 See also Mallory v. Hobbs Trailers, 554 So.2d 966 (Ala.1989). Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the trial court did not err in denyi......
  • Ex parte Bennett
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 17 Septiembre 1982
    ...BEATTY, JJ., concur. EMBRY, J., concurs in the result. FAULKNER, J., dissents. SHORES, J., not sitting. --------------- 1 Casey v. Jones, 410 So.2d 5 (Ala.1981), a case decided by this court after Harville, is in accord with this opinion, and should be 2 Again we emphasize that this is the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
55 cases
  • Black Belt Wood Co., Inc. v. Sessions
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 3 Octubre 1986
    ...verdict (JNOV). The standard for testing a motion for directed verdict is identical to that for testing a motion for JNOV. Casey v. Jones, 410 So.2d 5 (Ala.1981). Both motions test the sufficiency of the evidence. Wright v. Fountain, 454 So.2d 520 (Ala.1984). These motions should be denied ......
  • Gulf States Paper Corp. v. Hawkins
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 22 Diciembre 1983
    ...testing a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is identical to that for testing a motion for directed verdict. Casey v. Jones, 410 So.2d 5, 8 (Ala.1981). Consequently, our review of the trial court's failure to grant Gulf States' motion for directed verdict at the close of the ev......
  • Star Freight, Inc. v. Sheffield
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 6 Septiembre 1991
    ...raised by motion for a new trial, and measured by the more subjective "palpably wrong, manifestly unjust" standard.' Casey v. Jones, 410 So.2d 5, 8 See also Mallory v. Hobbs Trailers, 554 So.2d 966 (Ala.1989). Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the trial court did not err in denyi......
  • Ex parte Bennett
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 17 Septiembre 1982
    ...BEATTY, JJ., concur. EMBRY, J., concurs in the result. FAULKNER, J., dissents. SHORES, J., not sitting. --------------- 1 Casey v. Jones, 410 So.2d 5 (Ala.1981), a case decided by this court after Harville, is in accord with this opinion, and should be 2 Again we emphasize that this is the ......
  • 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