Eldorado Coal Co. v. Rust & Shelburne

• Decision Date: 10 April 1919
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 885
• Citation: 202 Ala. 625,81 So. 567
• Parties: ELDORADO COAL CO. v. RUST & SHELBURNE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

81 So. 567

202 Ala. 625

ELDORADO COAL CO. v. RUST & SHELBURNE.

6 Div. 885

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 10, 1919

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; John H. Miller, Judge.

Action by Rust & Shelburne against the Eldorado Coal Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appealed. Transferred from Court of Appeals under section 6, Acts 1911 p. 449. Affirmed.

L.J Haley, Forney Johnston, and W.R.C. Cocke, all of Birmingham for appellant.

Harsh, Harsh & Harsh, of Birmingham, for appellee.

ANDERSON C.J.

A broker is entitled to his commission, when he produces to his principal a customer, ready, willing, and able to buy on the terms provided by such principal, within the period allowed, or if the time is not limited before the revocation of the agency. Handley v. Schaffer, 177 Ala. 654, 59 So. 286; Sharpley v. Moody, 152 Ala. 549, 44 So. 650; Smith v. Sharpe, 162 Ala. 433, 50 So. 381, 136 Am.St.Rep. 52; Richardson v. Olanthe Mill. Co., 167 Ala. 411, 52 So. 659, 140 Am.St.Rep. 45; 9 Corpus Juris, 595, 596. If the broker is to procure a purchaser on specified terms, and does procure one who is able, ready, and willing to buy on these terms, he is entitled to the compensation agreed upon, although by reason of his principal's fault or refusal the sale is in fact never made. Handley v. Schaffer, supra; Sayre v. Wilson, 86 Ala. 151, 5 So. 157. According to the sounder and preferable view, unless the contract of employment stipulates to the contrary, the procurement of a binding, written contract between his employer and his customer is not necessary to the complete performance of his duties on the part of the broker, provided that the surrounding circumstances are such that the employer is in a position to execute it himself. 4 R.C.L. 306, § 48.

"The theory of the law is that when the broker has brought the minds of the buyer and seller to an agreement upon all the terms of sale, and the buyer is able, ready, and willing to buy, this is a constructive consummation of the sale, so far as the broker is concerned, because he has done all that he was required to do." Sayre v. Wilson, supra.

Here according to the plaintiff's evidence, which seems to have been accepted by the jury, they had closed a trade with the G.F. & A.R.R. for 10,000 tons of coal covering a year by weekly delivery at the price authorized, and nothing further remained for them to do. The sale was sufficiently definite and in pursuance of the authority given by the defendant to the plaintiffs, as per the testimony of Rust. The defendant claims that the purchaser was to supply equipment for moving the coal, and that this was a condition precedent. This was denied by Rust, and if this was not a condition precedent to the authority to sell or find a purchaser it was not necessary for the plaintiffs to have provided for same in their negotiations with the buyer, for the failure to provide for this in the offer or contract of sale did not render the same so indefinite as to render the transaction invalid, for in the absence of such a stipulation the law would determine whose duty it was to furnish or procure the equipment for moving the coal, which would be a question between the buyer and seller and with which the broker would not be concerned. If this stipulation was not embodied in their authority to sell, then the brokers did not have to provide for or against same in their...