Crichton v. Halliburton & Moore

• Decision Date: 26 May 1929
• Docket Number: 27853
• Citation: 154 Miss. 265,122 So. 200
• Parties: CRICHTON v. HALLIBURTON & MOORE
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

122 So. 200

154 Miss. 265

CRICHTON v. HALLIBURTON & MOORE

No. 27853

Supreme Court of Mississippi

May 26, 1929

Division B

Suggestion of Error Overruled June 7, 1929.

APPEAL from chancery court of Quitman county. HON HARVEY McGEHEE, Chancellor.

Suit by Halliburton & Moore against Powell Crichton, executor of Minna Lombard Crichton, deceased. Judgment for plaintiffs and defendant appeals. Reversed, and bill dismissed.

Judgment reversed, and bill dismissed.

Wells, Stevens & Jones, of Jackson, and Boone & Lowrey, of Marks, for appellant.

The cases of Lizano v. Brown Realty Co., 146 Miss. 758 111 So. 667, and Hayes v. Goodman-Leonard Realty Co., 146 Miss. 766, 111 So. 869, are each cases where the owner positively refused to convey and do not apply in this case.

Where a sale fails because of some error or default of the broker, he could nor ordinarily recover.

Mecham on Agencies (2 Ed.), page 2449; 9 C. J., p. 625; 9 C. J. pp. 566-67; 20 Ill. Law Review, 182; Fisher v. Dynes, 62 Ind. 348; Forsyth v. Phelps, 128 P. 778; Wolf v. Sullivan, 128 Ill.App. 62; Eastburn v. Espalla, 215 Ala. 650.

The broker must act in good faith.

Butte Land & Investment Co. v. Williams, 173 P. 550; 1 A. L. R. 1634; 20 A. L. R., page 289; 51 A. L. R., page 1390; Lee v. Greenwood Agency, 123 Miss. 823, 86 So. 449.

In Weiner v. Infield, 190 N.Y.S. 82, 116 Misc. 323, CROPSEY, J., said:

"In the absence of a special agreement providing otherwise, a broker employed to sell real property is entitled to commissions when he produces a purchaser who is ready and able to buy upon the seller's terms. But the broker and the seller may make any different agreement as to the time when, or the contingency upon which, the former's commissions shall be paid. They may, of course, agree that the commissions shall not be paid unless title passes, and may even agree that the broker shall not be entitled to recover although the failure to pass title be the fault of the seller. But this latter agreement will not be found unless the contract clearly shows it was the intention Of the parties."

Colvin v. Post. Mortgage & Land Co., 225 N.Y. 510, 516, 122 N.E. 454; Young v. Hunter, 6 N.Y. 203, 207; Patterson v. Meyerhofer, 204 N.Y. 96, 100, 97 N.E. 472.

And this includes doing anything that prevents the other party to a contract from earning his fees or agreed compensation.

Zadek v. Olds, Wortman & King, 166 A.D. 60, 63, 65, 151 N.Y.S. 634; Carns v. Bassick, 187 A.D. 280, 282, 283, 175 N.Y.S. 670.

So a broker can recover his commissions, though the condition upon which they were to be payable has not been performed, if the failure of performance was due to the act, omission, or default of his employer.

Fuller v. Bradley Contracting Co., 183 A.D. 6, 170 N.Y.S. 320; Booth v. New Process Cork Co., 196 A.D. 942, 187 N.Y.S. 927.

If a broker's right to commissions be contingent upon title passing, and the failure to pass title be due to the refusal of the buyer to take, or to any reason that did not involve the action or default of the seller, the commissions have not been earned.

Larson v. Burroughs, 131 A.D. 877, 116 N.Y.S. 358; Fittichauer v. Van Wyck, 92 N.Y.S. 241; Condict v. Cowdry, 139 N.Y. 273, 280, 34 N.E. 781; Preston v. Postel, 300 F. 134; Seymour v. St. Lode's Hospital, 28 A.D. 199, 50 N.Y.S. 989.

He who prevents a thing may not avail himself of the non-performance which he has occasioned.

13 Corpus Juris 648; Mechem on Agency, page 1140; Kimberly v. Henderson, 29 Md. 512; 6 Ruling Case Law, page 1012, sec. 374; Holton v. Job Iron & Steel Co., 204 F. 947; American Mercantile Corp. v. Spielberg, 262 F. 492; Ingram Realty Co. v. Brown, 94 So. 520, 208 Ala. 455; 9 Corpus Juris 629; Wolff v. Sullivan, 224 Ill. 509, 79 N.E. 646, cited in 9 C. J. 629; Roger's v. McMillen, 62 Texas Civ. App. 486, 132 S.W. 853, L. R. A. 1915E, page 714; Mercantile Trust Co. v. Niggerman, 194 Mo.App. 56, 96 S.W. 293; Middle Atlantic Immigration Co. v. Ardan, 115 Va. 148, 78 S.E. 588; Du Bois v. Zimmerman, 28 F.2d 173; Clark v, Hovey, 217 Mass. 485, 105 N.E. 222; Fisher v. Dynes, 62 Ind. 348; Forsyth v. Phelps, 128 P. 778; Dunne v. Colomb, 192 Cal. 740; Berry v. Hewitt, 210 Ill.App. 17; Marks v. Schultz, 177 Ill.App. 638; Husak v. Maywold, 185 Ill.App. 479.

Cases which make the right of the broker to recover contingent on the collection of the purchase price are well understood by this court.

Lee v. Greenwood Grocery Co., 123 Miss. 823, 86 So. 449; Eastburn v. Jos. Espalla, Jr., 215 Ala. 650, 112 So. 232, 53 A. L. R. 134; Alexander v. Smith, 180 Ala. 541, 61 So. 68; Berry v. Marx, 206 Ala. 619, 91 So. 583; Clay v. Cummins, 201 Ala. 34, 77 So. 328; Dean v. Roberts, 182 Ala. 221, 62 So. 44; Jackson v. Merry-Snellings Realty Co., 211 Ala. 174, 100 So. 111; Clifford v. Armstrong, 176 Ala. 441, 58 So. 430; Alford v. Creagh, 7 Ala.App. 358, 62 So. 254; Henderson v. Vincent, 84 Ala. 99, 4 So. 180; Butte Land & Investment Co. v. Williams (Mont.), 173 P. 550; 51 A. L. R. 1390; 20 A. L. R., p. 289; Walker on Real Estate Agency (2 Ed.), Pub. 1922; Hoyt v. Shipherd, 70 Ill. 309; Jansen v. Williams, 36 Neb. 869, 55 N.W. 279; Hardy v. Sheedy, 113 P. 1133, 58 Ore. 195; Alford v. Creagh, 62 So. 254, 7 Ala.App. 358; Baily v. Moore, 84 Ark. 462, 105 S.W. 178; Iowa Sup. 108, 115 N.W. 32, 139 Iowa 292, 106 N.W. 925.

Broker guilty of negligence to injury of principal, barred commissions.

Fisher v. Dynes, 62 Ind. 348; Stuart v. Stumph, 126 Ind. 580, 26 N.E. 553; Hardness v. Briscoe, 47 Mo.App. 196; Smye v. Groesbeck (Tex. Civ. App. '02), 73 S.W. 972; Waller v. Draughn, 118 So. 418, Advance Sheet No. 24, 1928; 29 Cyc. 1516, 27 R. C. L. 238; Ingrain Realty Co. v. Brown, 94 So. 520.

Conduct of one party to a contract which prevents the other from performing his part as an excuse for nonperformance.

1 Pomeroy (4 Ed.), page 738; U. S. v. Pack, 102 U.S. 64; Imperator Realty Co. v. Tull, 328 N.Y. 447; Dolan v. Rodgers, 149 N.Y. 489, 491, quoting West v. Blakeway, 2 M. & Gr. 751; Gallagher v. Nichols, 60 N.Y. 438; Risley v. Smith, 64 N.Y. 576, 582; Gen. El. Co. v. Nat. Contracting Co., 178 N.Y. 369, 375; Mackay v. Dick, 6 App. Cas. 251; New Zealand Shipping Co. v. Societe Des Aletiers, etc., 1919 A. C. 5; Riggs v. Palmer, 115 N.Y. 506; Thomson v. Poor, 147 N.Y. 402, 499; Arnot v. Union Salt Company, 180 N.Y. 501; Swain v. Seamens, 76 U.S. (9 Wall) 254; Brede v. Rosedale Terrace Co., 216 N.Y. 246.

Shands, Elmore & Causey, of Cleveland, for appellees.

Although the commission of the real estate broker is to be based on the amount to be realized from the consummated sale, nevertheless, if the sale is not consummated through the fault of the owner of the land, there is a breach of contract by the owner with the real estate broker for which the latter is entitled to recover a reasonable compensation for his services rendered.

Realty Finance Co. v. Point Richmond Canal Co., 171 Cal. 238; Pederson v. North Yakima & East Selah In. Co., 63 Wash. 636, 116 P. 279; Staskey v. Smith (Tex. Civ. App.), 268 S.W. 1057; Rabinowitz v. North Texas Realty Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 270 S.W. 579; Vining v. Mo-La Oi1 Co., 312 Mo. 30, 278 S.W. 747; Singer Construction Co. v. Goldsborough, 147 Md. 628, 128 A. 754; Ratzlaff v. Trainor-Desmond Co., 41 Cal.App. 586, 183 P. 269; Hamburger v. Thomas, 103 Tex. 280, 126 S.W. 561; Preston v. Postel (D. C.), 300 F. 134; Stevenson v. Morris Mach. Works, 69 Miss. 232, 13 So. 834; Lizanda v. Realty Co., 146 Miss. 758, 111 So. 876; Lee v. Greenwood Agency Co., 123 Miss. 823, 86 So. 449.

Aside from tho contract, Mrs. Crichton and the appellant were required under the law to give Miller a good title.

27 R. C. L. page 480, par. 196; Shirman et al. v. Wildberger, 125 Miss. 199, 87 So. 131.

We call the attention of the court to another rule which we say applies to this case. The appellees were entitled to their commissions as soon as Mrs. Crichton made the contract with Miller. The rule is announced in

Crockett v. Grayson, 36 S.E. 477; Kock v. Emmerling, 22 How. 69, 16 L.Ed. 292; Tombs v. Alenxander, 101 Mass. 255, and Mechem Ag., par. 862, et seq.; Home Banking & Realty Co. v. Baum, 82 A. 970, 971; Fitzpatrick v. Gibson, 179 Mass. 477, 478, 479, 57 N.E. 1000; McCahill v. N.Y. Transportation Co., 201 N.Y. 211, 9 N.E. 616; Holden v. Lyons, 157 S.W. 811; Hayden v. Grillo, 35 Mo.App. 647; Goodson v. Embleton, 106 Mo.App. 77, 80 S.W. 22; Sallee v. McMurray, 113 Mo.App. 253, 88 S.W. 157; Ketchum v. Azelson, 142 N.W. 62; Houtz v. Hellman, 128 S.W. 1006.

Where the issues of fact being controverted, either directly or by circumstances, the finding thereon of the Chancellor, who heard and observed the witnesses, will not be disturbed.

Bacot v. Halloway, 140 Miss. 120, 104 So. 696, 105 So. 739; Jackson v. Banks, 144 Miss. 392, 109 So. 905; Steede v. Ferrer, 116 So. 616; Rowlings v. Anderson, 115 So. 714; Robinson v. Harbour, 42 Miss. 795, 801.

Covenants to make title and to pay the money, are concurrent, mutual and dependent; and neither party can insist on a performance of the contract, without an offer or tender of performance on his part; and this rule applies with equal force in law and equity.

Mobley v. Keys, 13 S. & M. 677; Eckford v. Halbert, 30 Miss. 273; Klyce v. Broyles, 37 Miss. 524; McMaster v. Maye, 30 Miss. 258.

Courts will construe covenants to be dependent, unless a contrary intention clearly appears. A party shall not be forced to pay out his money, unless he can get that for which he stipulated.

Stockton v. George, 7 How. 172; Peques v. Mosley, 7 S. & M. 340, 347; Wodlington v. Hill, 10 S. & M. 560; Bank of Columbia v. Hagner, 1 Peters (U.S.) 455, 7 L.Ed. 219, and 2 Wendall 297.

Argued orally by J. M. Stevens, for appellant, and Hugh F. Causey,...