George C. Lemcke Co. v. Nordby

• Decision Date: 26 September 1921
• Docket Number: 16462.
• Citation: 200 P. 1103,117 Wash. 221
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: GEORGE C. LEMCKE CO. v. NORDBY.

200 P. 1103

117 Wash. 221

GEORGE C. LEMCKE CO. v. NORDBY.

No. 16462.

Supreme Court of Washington

September 26, 1921

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Everett Smith, Judge.

Action by the George C. Lemcke Company against Anna Nordby, for commissions on the sale of real estate. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Ryan & Desmond, of Seattle, for appellant.

Elias A. Wright and Sam A. Wright, both of Seattle, for respondent.

MITCHELL J.

This is a suit by the George C. Lemcke Company, a corporation, to recover on a contract signed and delivered to it by Anna Nordby, for a commission on the sale of real estate. From a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, the defendant has apealed.

The real property belonged to the community consisting of appellant and her husband, P. F. Nordby. The respondent found a purchaser who, upon the payment of $500 earnest money entered into a written contract for the purchase of the property. It was signed P. F. Nordby, owner, by John E. Ryan and also by the purchaser, but was not signed by the appellant. Under the same date of appellant executed and delivered to the respondent the contract on which the suit is brought. The abstract of title and a deed of conveyance proposed some days later were, upon examination, found to be satisfactory, but the night before they were to be passed and delivered, and the remainder of the consideration paid by the purchaser, P. F. Nordby died. The delay in completing the deal caused by his death resulted in changing the full details of the purchaser's contract by a formal concellation of it, and in putting him in possession of the property, with the clear understanding, however, that, as soon as proper steps were taken in the probate department of the superior court, the transfer would be made for the consideration originally fixed; and for that purpose the party who, by way of loan to the purchaser was to supply the larger part of the purchase price, held the money, until some weeks later, after proper court proceedings had been taken to make the title good, he furnished it to the purchaser, who in turn paid it, together with the other considerations, for the deed of conveyance.

By several assignments of error it is contended that the contract of the appellant to pay a commission was terminated by the cancellation of the earnest money contract, because by the terms of her contract she agreed to pay the commission if the purchaser completed the purchase 'under the terms and conditions' of the earnest money contract. The argument is that the cancellation of the earnest money contract deprived...