Finney v. Long
Decision Date | 14 April 1927 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 869 |
Parties | FINNEY et al. v. LONG. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Granted Oct. 20, 1927
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Roger Snyder, Judge.
Action to recover real estate commission by J.P. Long against Julia Finney and T.L. Finney. From a judgment for plaintiff defendants appeal. Transferred from Court of Appeals under Code 1923, § 7326. Reversed and remanded on rehearing.
Erle Pettus, of Birmingham, for appellants.
Lange Simpson & Brantley and Ormond Somerville, Jr., all of Birmingham, for appellee.
The three counts on which the trial was had were common counts and on alleged contract. The latter count avers that defendants employed the plaintiff as an agent to sell designated lots and agreed to pay plaintiff the customary real estate commission of 5 per cent. of the first $5,000 sales price and 2 1/2 per cent. of the balance; and it is further averred that as such agent the property was sold for the price of $7,000 on October 1 1923, and that defendants breached the contract in that they failed to pay as agreed upon and recited above. The demurrer being overruled, the reply thereto was in short by consent, with leave to give in evidence any matter which if well pleaded would be admissible in defense, etc.
The subject of commissions of real estate brokers has been often considered by the court and not necessary to be repeated. As to good faith exacted, see Clay v. Cummins, 201 Ala. 34, 77 So. 328; Id., 207 Ala. 105, 91 So. 790; Berry v. Marx, 206 Ala. 619, 91 So. 583; Peters Min. Land Co. v. Hooper, 208 Ala. 324, 94 So. 606; Jackson v. Berry-Snellings R. Co., 211 Ala. 174, 100 So. 111; Meeks v. Miller, 214 Ala. 684, 108 So. 864. And the rights of subbrokers were given extended consideration in Hale v. Brown, 211 Ala. 106, 99 So. 645; Id. (Ala.Sup.) 110 So. 376.
The relation of the parties to the sale must be determined. Distinguished counsel thus state their respective views as to this question: For the appellee, it is insisted that the bill of exceptions fails to show that plaintiff's capacity was that of "salesman only," and cites, in support of this, that plaintiff testified:
That he and Mr. Finney
The plaintiff, as a witness, defines his position and the facts to have been as follows:
The testimony of Mr. Watson was to the effect:
That he That it was his
The witness testified further as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nichols v. State
...that it was so prejudicial that it would be grounds for reversal. See Gurley v. State, 216 Ala. 342, 113 So. 391; Finney v. Long, 216 Ala. 628, 114 So. 200; Woodard v. State, 253 Ala. 259, 44 So.2d 241; Parker v. City of Birmingham, 36 Ala.App. 234, 56 So.2d 348; Peyton v. State, 40 Ala.App......
-
Givianpour v. Curtain
... ... 7 As demonstrated by the following summary of Alabama law in Wiltsie on Mortgage Foreclosure, we note that this principle of law has long been well established in Alabama: [I]n an action to enforce the statutory right of redemption, there must be an allegation of tender prior to ... ...
-
Ellison v. Sudduth Realty Co.
...& Weeden, 196 Ala. 417, 72 So. 89; Bruce v. Drake, 195 Ala. 236, 70 So. 273; Bailey v. Padgett, 195 Ala. 203, 70 So. 637; Finney v. Long, 216 Ala. 628, 114 So. 200. corollary to the rules declared in exclusive listing is that if several brokers or agents are openly employed, the duty of the......
-
Fisher v. Comer Plantation, Inc.
...First S. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Nicrosi, 333 So.2d 780, 784-85 (Ala.1976) (Jones, J., dissenting); and Finney v. Long, 216 Ala. 628, 631, 114 So. 200, 203 (1927); see also J. Clark Pendergrass, The Real Estate Consumer's Agency and Disclosure Act: The Case Against Dual Agency, 48 Ala. L.......