George F. Russell, Inc. v. Hickcox

Decision Date08 January 1929
Citation222 N.W. 807,197 Wis. 622
PartiesGEORGE F. RUSSELL, INC., v. HICKCOX.
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County; Edward T. Fairchild, Circuit Judge.

Action by George F. Russell, Inc., against J. Gilbert Hickcox. From the judgment, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.--[By Editorial Staff.]

Action commenced June 29, 1925; judgment of dismissal entered April 18, 1928. The action was begun to recover a real estate broker's commission according to the following written contract, signed and delivered to Thiermann-Russell Company November 14, 1924:

“Milwaukee, Wis., November 14, 1924.

Thiermann-Russell Co.: I hereby authorize you to act as exclusive agent to sell the property described on the reverse side of this card, and if a sale is made, or a purchaser therefor found at the price specified herein, or at any other price or terms which I may hereafter authorize or accept, I agree to execute and to deliver to the purchaser a warranty deed of the premises, and agree to furnish a complete abstract showing good title to same, and to pay you as a commission the regular board rate, viz. 5--3--2 1/2%. This agreement to be void after Nov. 24, 1924.

J. Gilbert Hickcox.”

On the reverse side was written a description of the real estate.

Hoyt, Bender, McIntyre & Hoyt, of Milwaukee, for appellant.

Wolfe & Kolinski, of Milwaukee, for respondent.

CROWNHART, J.

A partnership under the name of Thiermann-Russell Company had existed for some years prior to 1924. The partnership had a broker's license to transact business for the year 1924. In January, 1924, a corporation was organized by the partners, under the same name as used by the partners; the same persons became officers of the corporation, save the fact that they took in their respective wives as qualifying directors.

All the assets of the partnership were turned over to the corporation in exchange for stock in the corporation, and the partnership went out of business. The corporation wrote the real estate board advising it that it would apply for a license, but intended to close up pending business of the partnership under the partnership license. No application was in fact made for a license in 1924 for the corporation to act as a real estate broker, and it had no license for 1924.

The corporation failed to find a purchaser for the property within the allotted ten days specified in the contract, and defendant Hickcox extended the time to close the deal by writing in the contract “Dec.” in place of “Nov.,” thereby extending the time one month.

December 8, 1924, Russell induced one Uihlein to purchase the property and to pay cash therefor. Uihlein did not want his name to appear in the deal, so he took from Russell and his wife an agreement to assign to Uihlein any contract they might conclude with Hickcox. Russell then tendered to defendant his check for $1,500 to apply on the purchase money, and called for the abstract of title. Defendant could not furnish title at once, but had to make arrangements with a bank, with which he was formerly connected, which held the title to the property as collateral. He was unable to get his title clear until the May following. In the meantime the deal was called off, with the understanding that when defendant should have clear title it might be renewed.

Within a month of the meeting between Russell and defendant, in December, when the abstract was requested, Thiermann withdrew from the Thiermann-Russell Company by selling to Russell all his stock. Subsequently the name of the corporation was changed to the George F. Russell Company, the plaintiff herein.

After defendant cleared his title in May, 1925, Thiermann, who had gone into the real estate business on his own account, knowing of the Russell deal with defendant and Uihlein, offered to sell Uihlein the same property as agent for defendant, and did so. Uihlein hesitated to deal with Thiermann, but, upon being shown that Thiermann had authority from Hickcox, agreed to and did purchase the property through Thiermann.

The plaintiff thereupon brought suit for the full commission, $4,050, pursuant to the ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Owens v. Capri, 2406
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • January 25, 1949
    ...... . . In. George F. Russell Inc. vs. Hickcox, 197 Wis. 622, 222. N.W. 807 where the ......
  • Hancock Co. Inc v. Stephens
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Virginia
    • April 21, 1941
    ...similar principle supporting the ruling established in Virginia: Lee v. Moseley, 1929, 40 Ga. App. 371, 149 S.E. 808; Russell v. Hickcox, 1929, 197 Wis. 622, 222 N.W. 807; Wise v. Radis, 1925, 74 Cal.App. 765, 242 P. 90. In the view we have taken of the case, the question raised in the seco......
  • Hancock Company v. Stephens, Record No. 2323.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Virginia
    • April 21, 1941
    ...similar principle supporting the ruling established in Virginia: Lee Moseley (1929), 40 Ga.App. 371, 149 S.E. 808; Russell, Inc. Hickcox (1929), 197 Wis. 622, 222 N.W. 807; Wise Radis (1929), 74 Cal.App. 765, 242 P. 11 In the view we have taken of the case, the question raised in the second......
  • Polacheck v. Michiwaukee Golf Club
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • January 8, 1929

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