Gauthier v. West

• Decision Date: 05 January 1891
• Citation: Gauthier v. West, 45 Minn. 192, 47 N. W. 656 (Minn. 1891)
• Parties: GAUTHIER ET AL. v WEST.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

45 Minn. 192

47 N.W. 656

GAUTHIER ET AL.vWEST.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Jan. 5, 1891.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1.Where it has been agreed between the owner of real property which has been placed in the hands of real-estate brokers for sale and said brokers that, in case of a sale, no commissions shall be paid until the sale is consummated by delivery of the deed, there is an implied contract between the parties that the owner has the ability and can confer upon a purchaser a perfect title to the property.

2.In such a case, the brokers, having no knowledge of an infirmity of title when they undertake the sale, or when they make it, are entitled to their commissions, when they produce an able, ready, and willing customer, one who stands ready to complete the purchase and to accept a deed at the time fixed by the contract of sale, but for a defect in the title.

3.The testimony in this case justified the verdict.

Appeal from district court, Ramsey county; OTIS, Judge.

I. V. D. Heard, for appellant.

J. M. Hawthorne, (Howard L. Smith, of counsel,) for respondents.

COLLINS, J.

This was an action to recover the amount of certain commissions upon the sale of real estate, and plaintiffs had a verdict.In the complaint three distinct causes of action were set forth.As to the first, the plaintiffs claimed that they were to have as commissions such sum as they might be able to sell the premises for, over and above a sum fixed by the defendant as net to him.In answer to this, the defendant admitted the employment of the plaintiffs, and that they sold the lots, but he alleged that the commission agreed upon for plaintiffs' services was the sum of $100, no part of which was to be paid until the property was transferred to the purchaser by deed, and that this had not been done when the action was commenced, on account of an alleged flaw in the title, to remove which, defendant had been compelled to bring an action.The court charged the jury upon the testimony that the only question for them to determine as to this cause of action was what commission the plaintiffs were entitled to, whether $100 or the larger sum, the amount for which plaintiffs sold the property over and above the price fixed, as they claimed, by the defendant as net to him.It further charged the jury that, on this cause of action, the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the amount of their commission, whatever sum might have been agreed upon, when they found and produced a customer, who would have consummated the purchase and accepted the deed at the time stipulated in the contract of sale, had it not been for the cloud resting upon defendant's title.To this part of the charge the defendant excepted.On the trial it appeared that such a customer was produced, (and to whom a sale was finally made, but after this action was brought,) and there was no testimony tending to show, nor was it claimed by defendant, that plaintiffs had any knowledge of an infirmity of title when they agreed with defendant as to the amount of their commission in case of sale, or when they found and produced the customer; so that, conceding the contract to have been as defendant claims, the plaintiffs, having no knowledge of any defect in the title, were not obliged to wait for the amount...