Frank Hart Realty Co. v. Ryan, No. 22148.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtGraves
Citation288 Mo. 188,232 S.W. 126
PartiesFRANK HART REALTY CO. v. RYAN.
Decision Date06 June 1921
Docket NumberNo. 22148.
232 S.W. 126
288 Mo. 188
FRANK HART REALTY CO.
v.
RYAN.
No. 22148.
Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.
June 6, 1921.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Stoddard County; W. S. O. Walker, Judge.

Action by the Frank Hart Realty Company, a partnership composed of Frank Hart, J. B. Calvert, and W. J. Vaughn, against George L. Ryan. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appealed to Court of Appeals, which affirmed. 218 S. W. 412. Certified to Supreme Court on dissent. Affirmed.

Wammack & Welborn, of Bloomfield, for appellant.

J. L. Fort, of Dexter, for respondent.

GRAVES, J.


Because of diverse views entertained by the judges of the Springfield Court of Appeals, this cause reaches us upon certification from that court. The plaintiff is a copartnership engaged in the sale of real estate. Defendant owned 458 acres of land near Dexter, in Stoddard county. The diverse views of our learned brothers of the Court of Appeals call for the real issues in the case, as such issues are made by the pleadings. After alleging the copartnership of plaintiff, giving the names of the copartners, and describing the real estate owned by, defendant, the petition then proceeds:

"That on or about the _______ day of May, 1917, the plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant, not in writing, whereby it was agreed that if plaintiff would procure a purchaser for the defendant's said real estate, which was located about one-quarter of a mile in a southeastern direction from said city of Dexter, that he, the defendant, would pay the plaintiff 2½ per cent. of the amount realized on the sale of said real estate, at $125 per acre, there being 458 acres of said real estate, and at $125 per acre would amount to $57.250, and that 2½ per cent. of said amount amounts to $1,431.25.

"That after the making of said contract the plaintiff immediately went to work to procure a purchaser for said farm, who was ready, able, and willing to purchase the same at the agreed price and sum of $57,250, and that plaintiff did, on the 13th day of May, 1918, secure a purchaser for said farm, who was ready, able, and willing to pay the defendant the sum of $57,250 for said farm on such terms and conditions as the defendant had agreed to sell the same, in consequence of which there became due from the defendant to the plaintiff the sum of $1,431.25, which sum is now due and owing by the defendant to the plaintiff, and payment whereof has been refused by the defendant, though he had been requested to pay the same to the plaintiff.

"Wherefore, plaintiff prays judgment against the defendant for the sum of $1,431.25, with S per cent. interest thereon from the 13th day of May, 1919, together with costs of suit."

The answer was a simple general denial. Plaintiff had a verdict for the sum of $1,425, upon which a judgment was entered. From such judgment the defendant appealed.

I. It is admitted by defendant that the plaintiffs were at one time authorized by him to sell the lands for him at $125 per acre, and that he agreed to pay the commission of 2½ per cent. upon the aggregate amount of sale. Tie lived in Indiana, and came to Dexter shortly after receiving a telegram notifying him that the land had been sold. Whilst admitting that plaintiff had been authorized to sell the land at $125 per acre on an agreed commission of 2½ per cent. the defendant urged that the authority had been withdrawn some time before the sale. This, therefore, became a controverted point. Defendant arrived at Dexter on Thursday, and the three men who had been procured as purchasers by plaintiff were ready and willing to buy at the stipulated price, but defendant) demanded $60,000 for the land. This was upon Saturday, and this sale was lost through the act

232 S.W. 127

of the defendant. In the record and briefs this is called the Saturday transaction. On Monday plaintiffs notified defendant that, inasmuch as buyers (who were ready and willing to buy, and who were responsible) had been found he would have to pay the commission. In this situation, defendant told plaintiffs to see their prospective buyers, and that he would take the price of $125 per acre, or $57,250, instead of the $60,000 demanded by him Saturday. Plaintiff failed to get one of the three parties (who were ready and willing upon Saturday) to further consider the trade. According to plaintiffs' evidence it was then agreed that the plaintiff firm should take the place of the third purchaser, and that the land was to be divided, and each purchaser was to be only liable for his part. Further, plaintiff firm was to have credit on their purchase for $1,000 for what they had done. This sale fell through, according to the view of plaintiffs, by reason of the fact that defendant demanded that the three purchasers should stand responsible for the whole of the land, and not for their respective shares. This was also a controverted question. In the record,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Stoutimore v. Santa Fe Ry. Co., No. 33227.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 10 Marzo 1936
    ...Co., 321 Mo. 1080, 15 S.W. (2d) 762; Slymon v. Simon, 226 Mo. App. 1000, 48 S.W. (2d) 140; Frank Hart Realty Co. v. Ryan, 218 S.W. 412, 288 Mo. 188, 232 S.W. 126; North Nishabotna Drainage Dist. v. Morgan, 323 Mo. 1, 18 S.W. (2d) 438; Porter v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 71 S.W. (2d) 766. ......
  • Finley v. Farrar, No. 38367.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 4 Mayo 1943
    ...subsequently discovered if he accepts the juror without examining him ..." 35 C.J., sec. 408, p. 370; Frank Hart Realty Co. v. Ryan, 288 Mo. 188, 232 S.W. 126. (15) "A party by failing to challenge or object waives any irregularity in the selection of the jury list or panel, or in......
  • Massman v. Kansas City Public Service Co., No. 34992.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 17 Septiembre 1938
    ...119 S.W.2d 838 Mo.Sup., 104 S.W.2d 272; Allen v. C., R. I. & P. R. Co., 327 Mo. 526, 37 S. W.2d 607; Frank Hart Realty Co. v. Ryan, 288 Mo. 188, 232 S.W. 126; State v. Wilson, 230 Mo. 647, 132 S.W. 238. An exception is made to this rule so that "where it is shown that matters which......
  • Cook v. Kansas City, No. 40528.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 13 Septiembre 1948
    ...of incompetency. State v. Snyder, 182 Mo. 462, 82 S.W. 12; Orr v. Bradley, 126 Mo. App. 146, 103 S.W. 1149; Hart Realty Co. v. Ryan, 288 Mo. 188, 232 S.W. [4] However, the city did not waive the juror's subsequent misconduct. 39 Am. Jur., Sec. 71. p. 86. And he was guilty of misconduct in i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Stoutimore v. Santa Fe Ry. Co., No. 33227.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 10 Marzo 1936
    ...Co., 321 Mo. 1080, 15 S.W. (2d) 762; Slymon v. Simon, 226 Mo. App. 1000, 48 S.W. (2d) 140; Frank Hart Realty Co. v. Ryan, 218 S.W. 412, 288 Mo. 188, 232 S.W. 126; North Nishabotna Drainage Dist. v. Morgan, 323 Mo. 1, 18 S.W. (2d) 438; Porter v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 71 S.W. (2d) 766. ......
  • Finley v. Farrar, No. 38367.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 4 Mayo 1943
    ...subsequently discovered if he accepts the juror without examining him ..." 35 C.J., sec. 408, p. 370; Frank Hart Realty Co. v. Ryan, 288 Mo. 188, 232 S.W. 126. (15) "A party by failing to challenge or object waives any irregularity in the selection of the jury list or panel, or in drawing o......
  • Massman v. Kansas City Public Service Co., No. 34992.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 17 Septiembre 1938
    ...119 S.W.2d 838 Mo.Sup., 104 S.W.2d 272; Allen v. C., R. I. & P. R. Co., 327 Mo. 526, 37 S. W.2d 607; Frank Hart Realty Co. v. Ryan, 288 Mo. 188, 232 S.W. 126; State v. Wilson, 230 Mo. 647, 132 S.W. 238. An exception is made to this rule so that "where it is shown that matters which might es......
  • Cook v. Kansas City, No. 40528.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 13 Septiembre 1948
    ...of incompetency. State v. Snyder, 182 Mo. 462, 82 S.W. 12; Orr v. Bradley, 126 Mo. App. 146, 103 S.W. 1149; Hart Realty Co. v. Ryan, 288 Mo. 188, 232 S.W. [4] However, the city did not waive the juror's subsequent misconduct. 39 Am. Jur., Sec. 71. p. 86. And he was guilty of misconduct in i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT