Coates v. Locust Point Co.

• Decision Date: 06 December 1905
• Citation: 62 A. 625,102 Md. 291
• Parties: COATES v. LOCUST POINT CO. OF CITY OF BALTIMORE.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

62 A. 625

102 Md. 291

COATES v. LOCUST POINT CO. OF CITY OF BALTIMORE.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

December 6, 1905

Appeal from Baltimore City Court; Danl. Giraud Wright, Judge.

Action by Leonard R. Coates against the Locust Point Company of the City of Baltimore. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Argued before McSHERRY, C.J., and BRISCOE, BOYD, SCHMUCKER, JONES and BURKE, JJ.

James J. Lindsay and R.R. Boarman, for appellant.

Edgar Allen Poe, for appellee.

BOYD J.

This suit was instituted to recover commissions for the sale of a lot of ground in the city of Baltimore claimed to have been made by the appellant for the appellee. The defendant pleaded the statute of limitations in addition to the general issue. The first bill of exceptions presents the ruling of the Baltimore city court on an offer of certain evidence, and the second contains a prayer granted by the court, at the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence, which instructed the jury that the plaintiff had offered no evidence legally sufficient to entitle him to recover upon the pleadings, and the verdict must be for the defendant. The questions to be determined are: (1) Did the appellant make the sale for which the commissions are claimed? (2) Does the fact that he was not a licensed real estate broker for 1903, when the deed was made, preclude his recovery? (3) Is the statute of limitations a bar to his recovery? (4) If it be determined that the appellant will be entitled to commissions, was he so entitled when this suit was brought?

1. There can be no doubt from the testimony that the appellant was employed by Dr. Gallagher, the president of the appellee company, to sell the property, and that he was to receive 2 1/2 per cent. commission, if he made the sale. Mr. Levering the president of the Piedmont-Mt. Airy Guano Company to which the property was conveyed, testified that Dr. Coates called his attention to the property, brought him and Dr. Gallagher together, and that it was through the negotiations begun with Dr. Coates that the arrangement was finally made. That was in the latter part of 1897. On the 16th of December, 1897, an agreement was made between the two companies by which the Locust Point Company leased to the guano company the lot of ground claimed to have been sold by the appellant for the period of three years from the 1st day of January, 1898, at an annual rental of $1,500. The guano company was authorized to sell the machinery contained in the main building upon the demised premises, and apply the proceeds thereof to repairing the main buildings, the wharf, and the flooring of the machine shop, and to replace the platform of the foundry; the proceeds of sale in excess of the repairs, etc., to be paid to the Locust Point Company, less the costs and expenses incident to the sale. It was further agreed that, "at any time during the demise hereby created and not thereafter," the Locust Point Company would, upon the payment of $26,000 and a pro rata proportion of the rent accruing under the demise to the date of the payment of the purchase money, convey the demised premises in fee simple to the guano company by a good and merchantable title, free and clear of all incumbrances. The agreement further provided that the term could, at the option of the guano company, be extended for another term of two years "at the same rent and upon the same terms and conditions as those hereinbefore contained," provided notice was given as therein stated. The president of the guano company testified that it availed itself of the option the day it expired, which was December 31, 1902. The deed was dated the 1st day of January, 1903, and it recites the consideration to be "the sum of five dollars and divers other good and valuable considerations," and conveys this lot of ground and another. A mortgage was given by the guano company to the appellee of the same date as the deed, which recites that the guano company held an option to buy the property demised for the sum of $31,000, and, having determined to avail itself of the option, had issued three promissory notes of even date each for the sum of $5,000, payable on the 1st days of March May, and July, 1903, and also its note of $16,000 payable five years after date, as well as certain interest notes. The mortgagor was authorized to pay off the mortgage debt at any time prior to July 1, 1903, and after that date at any time of the maturity of any interest note. It conveyed the two lots of ground and contained the usual provisions for foreclosure in case of default. Mr. Levering testified that $26,000 was paid for one and $5,000 for the other lot of ground. He spoke of the mortgage for $16,000 being given to the Sheppard-Pratt Asylum, but it is not explained in the record what he meant by that. The lot for which the sum of $26,000 was to be paid is the one that the appellant had undertaken to sell for the appellee. Dr. Gallagher was not willing to spend any money in making the repairs, and the appellee declined to take the property unless they were made. It was then agreed that the machinery spoken of should be sold and the proceeds used. Dr. Coates sold the machinery, and, apparently, he also had a railroad switch built to the property. Mr. Levering said that Dr. Coates was the only person he saw during the negotiations until they were virtually consummated, and then Dr. Gallagher came to instruct Mr. Dawson to draw the lease--the arrangements were carried out as agreed upon by Dr. Coates, who "brought the principals together." Dr. Coates testified that at the time of his employment by Dr. Gallagher it was agreed that he was to have 2 1/2 per cent. commissions. In his testimony is the following: "Q. At the time of your negotiations with Dr. Gallagher was there anything said by Dr. Gallagher as to what commissions you were to receive for making the sale and the carrying out this agreement? A. I was to receive 2 1/2 per cent., if the option was exercised. Q. You were to receive 2 1/2 per cent. if the option was accepted? Is that it? A. That is the idea." There is also evidence that the appellant received $75 commission on the first year's rent, but there is nothing in the record to show that that was received in lieu of the commissions...