Glenn v. Davidson

• Decision Date: 18 February 1873
• Citation: 37 Md. 365
• Parties: JOHN GLENN and Others, Trading as John Glenn & Co. v. C. Y. DAVIDSON.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

37 Md. 365

JOHN GLENN and Others, Trading as John Glenn & Co. v. C. Y. DAVIDSON.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

February 18, 1873

Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Baltimore City.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

The cause was argued before BARTOL, C.J., STEWART, BOWIE, BRENT and ROBINSON, JJ.

A McD. McBlair and T. Wallis Blackistone, for the appellant.

If the appellants found a person ready, able and willing to make the loan which they were employed to negotiate, upon the terms upon which they were authorized by the defendant to negotiate it, and so notified the defendant, and the consummation of the loan was prevented solely by the fault or refusal of the defendant, they were entitled to recover, unless the jury found the existence of the custom alleged to exist among brokers in Baltimore, and that the defendant had obtained a loan in all respects similar from another broker before he was notified by the plaintiffs. Schwartze v. Yearly, 31 Md. 270; Henderson v. Kimberly, 29 Md. 512.

R Stockett Matthews, for the appellee.

Brent J., delivered the opinion of the court.

The action in this case was brought to recover a broker's commission of two and a half per cent. on $10,000. It appears that the appellee employed the appellants, who are property agents in the City of Baltimore, to negotiate for him a loan of that amount, upon mortgage on certain real property belonging to him, for three years, at the rate of eight per cent. per annum. He also employed other property agents in Baltimore to effect the same loan upon the same terms. These appellants succeeded in effecting the loan upon the terms stipulated from a responsible person, who was ready, able and willing to comply on his part, and so notified the appellee. He did not, however, accept the loan, stating as his reason that he had already perfected a loan of that amount upon the same property and at the same rate for one year, through one of the other agents whom he had employed and had paid him his full commissions. Upon these facts the appellants claim they have a right to recover.

The right of the appellee to employ at the same time more than one broker to effect a loan was conceded at the argument, and also the usage among brokers to the effect that when two or more were employed to negotiate the same transaction, the broker who first succeeded in making such negotiations was entitled to full commissions, and the others were not entitled to any.

But it was contended on the part of the appellants, that their right to recover could not be affected by this custom, because the loan which had been obtained, although the same in other respects, differed from the one, which they had been employed to make, in being for one year instead of three; and they insist that their third prayer, which presents this point ought not to have been rejected by the court below. A broker who fully discharges his duty, and performs all that he undertook to do, is entitled to recover for his services without regard to the fact whether such services...