Earp v. Cummins

• Decision Date: 13 May 1867
• Citation: 54 Pa. 394
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
• Parties: Earp <I>versus</I> Cummins.

54 Pa. 394

Earp versus Cummins.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

February 27, 1867.

May 13, 1867.

February 27th 1867.

Before WOODWARD, C. J., THOMPSON, STRONG and READ, JJ. AGNEW, J., at Nisi Prius

Error to the District Court of Philadelphia.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

W. H. Sutton, for plaintiff in error, cited Barnard v. Minot, 34 Barb. 94; Shepherd v. Heddon, 5 Dutch. 341; Ludlow v. Carman, 2 Hilton 107; Cousins v. Mitcheson, 3 F. & F. 236; Gibson v. Crick, 2 Id. 168, note a; Pierce v. Thomas, 4 E. D. Smith 355; Glentworth v. Luther, 21 Barb. 145.

A. Lewis Smith, for defendant in error, cited Barnard v. Minot, 34 Barb. 94; Shepherd v. Heddon, 5 Dutch. 341; Ludlow v. Carman, 2 Hilton 107; Cousins v. Mitcheson, 3 F. & F. 236; Glentworth v. Luther, 21 Barb. 145; Morgan v. Mason, 4 E. D. Smith 636; Pierce v. Thomas, Id. 355; Coleman v. Garrigues, 18 Barb. 60; Corning v. Calvert, 2 Hilton 56; Inslee v. Jones, Brightly's R. 76.

The opinion of the court was delivered, May 13th 1867, by WOODWARD, C. J.

We think the learned judge stated the rule of law too broadly in saying "it is the sole business of the real estate broker to bring buyer and seller together." And again, "a mere seeing it (the property) in the catalogue of the broker, or in his advertisements, is sufficient, provided a sale takes place in consequence thereof." Too broadly, we mean, for the facts of this case; because, although the property was advertised by the broker, and the attention of the purchaser was first called to it in that way, yet the evidence was that he declined to purchase, and all negotiations for a sale were abandoned for several months, nor was the purchase finally made until other parties again brought the property to his notice, and then Young, the purchaser, says he bought it, not in consequence of Cummins's advertisement, but by reason of this renewed recommendation by other parties. If anybody could tell how he bought, in consequence of what cause Young himself was the proper witness, and he swore, "I was not influenced by Mr. Cummins at all in making this purchase. I did not know him in the transaction, he had nothing to do with the purchase so far as I know."

Now, a real estate broker is the agent of the vendor. There must be an employment to constitute him an agent, and his service as such, however slight, must be the efficient cause of the sale. If a mere introduction of the property to the notice of the buyer effects the sale, the broker earns his commission. An advertisement or any other service is enough if it be the immediate and efficient cause of the bargain. But if the services of the broker, whatever they be, fail to accomplish a sale, and several months after the proposed purchaser has decided not to buy, he is induced by other persons to...