Glascock v. Vanfleet
| Decision Date | 08 March 1898 |
| Parties | GLASCOCK et al. v. VANFLEET. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Appeal from chancery court, Shelby county; Sterling Pierson Chancellor.
Bill by George H. Glascock and others against P. P. Vanfleet. From a decree dismissing the bill, complainants appeal. Affirmed.
Brown Hirsch & Brown, for appellants.
T. H Jackson, for appellee.
This is an action to recover commissions as agents for a sale of certain real estate in Memphis. The property belonged to the Raja heirs, and was sold to Vanfleet for $20,000 by the Gilchrist Company. The complainants had the property listed, and had done some work in trying to effect a sale of it, and had some negotiations with Vanfleet; and, when they learned that the sale was about to be effected by the Gilchrist Company, they notified the purchaser, Vanfleet, that they claimed commissions, or a part of them, out of the proceeds. Vanfleet denied that they were entitled to any commissions, but, in order that the trade might not be interfered with, agreed to guaranty such commissions as they could show themselves entitled to. An attempt was afterwards made to arbitrate the matter, but failed, and this suit was brought. The chancellor denied any relief, and dismissed the bill, and complainants have appealed and assigned errors.
The property, it appears, had been put into the hands of a number of real-estate agents for sale by the Raja heirs, but no agency was exclusive. It appears that the first conversation Vanfleet had about the property with any agent was with Glascock. Vanfleet introduced this conversation, and said that it would be desirable property, and that he saw a number of signs of different real-estate agents on it, but did not see Glascock's. Glascock informed him that they also had the property for sale, and priced it to him at $27,000. A few days afterwards, he saw Vanfleet again, and gave him further information in regard to the property, and finally told Vanfleet that the lowest figure at which he could offer it was $22,500, but that he would submit any offer he had to make. Vanfleet's version of this is somewhat different, and to the effect that Glascock's lowest offer was $25,000, and he would submit any offer $2,000 or $3,000 less. No agreement was reached, and Vanfleet made no positive offer. Some time after, Tucker, of the Gilchrist Company, had a conversation with Vanfleet about other property, and, in course of the conversation, Vanfleet mentioned this; and Tucker asked permission to try and effect a sale at $20,000, to which Vanfleet consented, and soon after bought the property at that figure from the Gilchrist Company.
It is insisted that Glascock, having first conferred with Vanfleet about the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robinson v. Kemmons Wilson Realty Co.
...counsel in his brief cites and relies on Arrington v. Cary, 64 Tenn. 609; Gilbert v. Smith, 14 Tenn.App. 500; Glascock v. Vanfleet, 100 Tenn. 603, 46 S.W. 49; Nance v. Smyth, 118 Tenn. 349, 99 S.W. 698; Peavy [41 TENNAPP 305] v. Walker, Tenn.App., 284 S.W.2d 1; Pyles v. Cole, 34 Tenn.App. 6......
- McCormack v. Henderson
- Hovey & Brown v. Aaron
-
Murray v. Miller
...the deal is entitled to commissions, in the absence of fraud or unfair dealings between the land owner and the successful broker. 100 Tenn. 603, 46 S.W. 449. 3. new contract covering the subject-matter of an earlier contract and inconsistent with it will abrogate it. 116 Ill. 279, 5 N.E. 54......