Dallas v. Austin

• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: HART, J.
• Citation: Dallas v. Austin, 244 S.W. 437, 155 Ark. 367 (Ark. 1922)
• Decision Date: 23 October 1922
• Docket Number: 216
• Parties: DALLAS v. AUSTIN

244 S.W. 437

155 Ark. 367

DALLAS v. AUSTIN

No. 216

Supreme Court of Arkansas

October 23, 1922

Appeal from Chicot Circuit Court; Turner Butler, Judge; affirmed.

STATEMENT OF FACTS.

This appeal involves the right of D. E. Dallas to establish a claim against the estate of T. B. Feazor, deceased, for compensation alleged to be due under a verbal contract with T. B. Feazor to sell for him certain real estate in the city of Hot Springs, Arkansas.

The material facts are undisputed and are as follows: In June 1919, D. E. Dallas was a real estate agent in Hot Springs Arkansas, and T. B. Feazor owned certain property in that city known as the Keeley Institute. Feazor listed his property for sale with Dallas, and it was the understanding between them that Feazor should receive $ 11,000 net for the property, and that Dallas should have as commissions all that he sold the property for over that sum. Dallas made a verbal agreement with William Tiefel to sell the property to him for $ 12,000 and to furnish an abstract of title showing a good and merchantable title in T. B. Feazor. About three o'clock on the afternoon of June 4, 1919, Dallas took Tiefel to see Feazor, and an oral agreement was reached between Feazor and Tiefel for the latter to purchase the property for $ 12,000, and Feazor to furnish an abstract of title showing a good and merchantable title in the property in himself. Feazor was apparently in good health at this time, but suddenly died between six and eight o'clock on the evening of the same day. Feazor died testate, and Lowery Austin duly qualified as the executor of his will. Tiefel was advised by his attorney that a good title to the property could not be conveyed to him until it was shown that all State and Federal inheritance taxes which might be due by Feazor's estate were paid, and until the time for filing claims against said estate had expired. The attorney also advised Tiefel that the title to said property was not a good and marketable title.

The executor of Feazor's estate and the devisees under his will offered to carry out his contract with Tiefel and to convey said property to him. They showed him that the estate was solvent, and that there was plenty of other property to pay any claims that might be filed and proved against the estate. Nevertheless Tiefel declined to carry out his contract for the purchase of the property, and subsequently the property was sold to another person for $ 10,000. Dallas exhibited his claim for compensation under the contract with Feazor for the sale of said property to the executor, who disallowed it. The judgment of the probate court was also against him, and Dallas appealed to the circuit court.

The circuit court was of the opinion, under the facts recited above, that the estate of T. B. Feazor, deceased, was not indebted to D. E. Dallas on said claim, and judgment was rendered accordingly. The case is here on appeal.

Judgment affirmed.

L E. Sawyer and Roy M. Sayre, for appellant.

Where a broker furnishes a purchaser, and the purchaser is in no way at fault, and the transaction fails, the broker is entitled to his commission. 81 Ark. 96. Upon the failure of the party offering real estate for sale to furnish a good and marketable title, a broker is entitled to his commission where he has furnished a purchaser, ready, willing and able to perform the contract. 112 Ark. 570. In this case a good title could not be furnished because of certain defects of which the broker was not aware.

...