Gray v. Blake, 17504
| Decision Date | 23 May 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 17504,17504 |
| Citation | 131 Colo. 560,283 P.2d 1078 |
| Parties | C. A. GRAY, Plaintiff in Error, v. James BLAKE, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Berton T. Gobble, Fort Morgan, for plaintiff in error.
George A. Epperson, Donald F. McClary, Fort Morgan, for defendant in error.
Before ALTER, C. J., and MOORE, HOLLAND, CLARK, LINDSLEY, BRADFIELD and KNAUSS, JJ.
Defendant in error James Blake and his wife were owners in joint tenancy of ranch property in Morgan county, Colorado. C. A. Gray, plaintiff in error, was a realestate broker with whom Blake listed the property for sale on October 6, 1950, and on March 15, 1951, renewed or reaffirmed the listing. In March of 1951, Earl G. Nichol, one of Gray's representatives, submitted to Blake a document entitled 'Agreement to Purchase Real Estate,' which was an offer on the part of one Kincheloe to buy the Blake property for $18 per acre as listed, with reservations of one-half the oil and mineral rights, together with the buyer's check in the sum of $1,000. The check was delivered to Blake who signed the agreement. Abstracts of title were delivered to purchaser for examination and Gray testified that at that time was the first knowledge he or his representative had that Mrs Blake was a joint owner of the property as shown by the abstract examination. It is disclosed that the wife knew the property had been listed with plaintiff for sale and on more than one occasion she showed the property to prospective purchasers produced by Gray. Mrs. Blake, the wife, did not sign the contract. However, as the agreement specified, the purchaser tendered in cash the balance of the purchase price to Blake and demanded a deed signed by both Mr. and Mrs. Blake. Mrs. Blake refused to sign the deed and gave as reason that the price was too low and it was too late in the year. Gray filed an action against Blake to recover commission he claimed to have earned. After the issues were formed, trial was had to a jury which returned a verdict in favor of defendant. Gray, plaintiff in error, procured the issuance of a writ of error from our Court in case No. 17,005, and an opinion reversing the judgment was rendered October 26, 1953, Gray v. Blake, 128 Colo. 381, 262 P.2d 741, 744. In a word, the reversal was based upon the giving of improper instructions and refusal to give certain requested instructions, and a new trial was directed. The matter again came on for hearing before a jury on the 14th day of June 1954, and it being made to appear that Earl G. Nichol, a main witness and the agent or representative of plaintiff, had died on July 4, 1953, his testimony as read from the original transcript was received. The testimony of C. A. Gray, B. Rolland, Gray, Chester Kincheloe, James Blake and Faye Blake was introduced and the matter submitted to a jury upon instructions indicated in our opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Knauss in Gray v. Blake, supra. The jury returned its verdict in favor of defendant James Blake June 15, 1954, and Gray specifies error to the judgment entered on the verdict and summarizes argument in support thereof generally to the effect that the court erred in refusing to give plaintiff's requested instructions 1, 2 and 3, and in giving instructions No. 3, 4 and 7. The pivotal point in the instant case is the question of whether or not Gray or his representative knew, or had reason to believe, that the property listed by Blake for sale was owned in joint tenancy, and if they had such knowledge, then their failure to obtain the wife's signature on the contract precluded their right of recovery. Counsel for plaintiff contends, and his contention is supported by some authorities, that Gray's right to recover a commission was fixed when he carried out his part; rendered the services and produced a buyer ready, able and willing to purchase the land, regardless of whether the wife had joined in the contract or not, because he had a right to rely as a cause of action against Blake, the husband, that Blake had authority to act in the premises. However, it is said in the opinion in Gray v. Blake, supra, 'If Gray knew at the time of the listing by the husband that the wife was a joint owner of the property; did not obtain a listing from her; and she declined to join in a conveyance with her husband; Gray could not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stortroen v. Beneficial Finance Co. of Colorado
...an agent given in the course of a transaction which is within the scope of the agency is notice to the principal. Gray v. Blake, 131 Colo. 560, 564, 283 P.2d 1078, 1080 (1955); Denver, S.P. & Pac. R.R. v. Conway, 8 Colo. 1, 9, 5 P. 142, 147 (1884). So too, notice to a subagent who is under ......
-
Bryan v. Justice, 70--768
...of his employer's inability to deliver good title because of a refusal of the co-owner to join in the employment. See Gray v. Blake, 131 Colo. 560, 283 P.2d 1078 (1955); Lovejoy v. Reed, 302 Ky. 153, 193 S.W.2d 1013 (Ky.App.1946). In determining the propriety of the summary judgment, it is ......
-
Chastain v. Carroll
...of his employer's inability to deliver good title because of a refusal of the co-owner to join in the employment. See Gray v. Blake, 131 Colo. 560, 283 P.2d 1078 (1955); Lovejoy v. Reed, 302 Ky. 153, 193 S.W.2d 1013 Appellants contend that the exception noted in the Except, Supra, is applic......
-
Jehly v. Brown
...of actual knowledge in a fraudulent concealment claim. We conclude that it does not. ¶ 17 Plaintiffs, citing Gray v. Blake, 131 Colo. 560, 283 P.2d 1078 (1955), and Denver, S.P. & P. R.R. Co. v. Conway, 8 Colo. 1, 5 P. 142 (1884), rely upon the agency principle, with which we agree, that kn......