Halbert v. Block-Meeks Realty Co.

Decision Date28 January 1957
Docket NumberBLOCK-MEEKS,No. 5-1146,5-1146
Citation227 Ark. 246,297 S.W.2d 924
PartiesRoy HALBERT and Alice Halbert Appellants, v.REALTY CO., Appellee.
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Joseph C. Kemp, Little Rock, for appellant.

Spitzberg, Mitchell & Hays, Little Rock, and Beresford L. Church, Jr., North Little Rock, for appellee.

HOLT, Justice.

Appellee, Block-Meeks Realty Co., brought this suit against appellants, Roy Halbert and his wife Alice Halbert, for a 5% sales commission on the sale of certain real property in Little Rock. The listing price was $16,500. Trial before the court, sitting as a jury, resulted in a verdict for appellee for $825 and from the judgment is this appeal.

For reversal appellants rely on the following points: '1. The listing contract executed between the parties had expired before the sale by the defendants. 2. The plaintiff failed to prove that the sale was made 'on information given, received or obtained through' the plaintiff. 3. There is no proof that the plaintiff was the procuring cause of the sale. 4. The plaintiff failed to prove that it found a buyer ready, willing and able to buy according to the fixed price set out in the contract. 5. The evidence does not support a finding that the defendants received value in the amount of $16,500.00 for their property.' The trial court found against appellants on all of these contentions, and we think correctly so. The evidence shows that on July 27, 1955, appellants entered into an exclusive listing contract with the appellee real estate firm for the sale of the property involved, No. 1 Myrtle Lane, from July 27, 1955 'till 8-15-55.' During this listing period there was evidence that Mr. Block, one of the appellees, attempted to bring about a sale or trade of the property to Mr. and Mrs. Roy Bosson and that on August 16, 1955, the Bossons conveyed their home to the Halberts as part of the consideration for the transfer of the property here involved, No. 1 Myrtle Lane, which was later conveyed by the Halberts to the Bossons. It appears that Block made a diligent effort to bring about the sale of the Myrtle Lane property to the Bossons, such deal to include Bosson's equity in the Markham Street property. Roy Bosson testified, in effect, that he and his wife bought the Myrtle Lane property from Roy Halbert and his wife; they looked at the property shortly after July 25, 1955; that the first contact he had with Halbert was when he, his wife, and daughter were visiting the property and Mr. Halbert came in; that later Halbert brought Mr. Block to Bosson's Markham Street property to make an appraisal of it, and that Block examined the house thoroughly. Bosson did observe Block-Meeks signs on the Myrtle Lane property at the time. It was stipulated that the Bossons executed a deed to their Markham Street property to the Halberts August 16, 1955. Bosson further testified that it was a day or two before he and his wife executed this deed that he reached an agreement with the Halberts for the purchase of the Myrtle Lane property here involved. Roy Halbert testified to the same effect. The listing contract contained this provision: 'If said property be sold or disposed of during the period above stated, no matter by whom or in what manner, I agree to pay the Block-Meeks Realty Company a commission of Five (5%) as compensation for for services of Block-Meeks Realty Company to be rendered herein.' As pointed out, it is undisputed that the deed from the Bossons to the Halberts, conveying the West Markham Street property, was executed August 16, 1955, and Bosson testified that his agreement with Halbert to sell the Halbert property to him was a day or two before the execution of this deed. We hold that there was substantial evidence to support the finding of the trial court that the sale was made during the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Fetters v. City of Des Moines
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • April 4, 1967
    ...from day to day, or from one day to another. * * *' See also Darnall v. Day, 240 Iowa 665, 670, 37 N.W.2d 277; Halbert v. Block-Meeks Realty Co., 227 Ark. 246, 297 S.W.2d 924, 925; and 52 Am.Jur., Time, section 25, page Although directed to the construction of statutes, see Code section 4.1......
  • Herrell v. Piner, 8374
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • January 29, 1968
    ...made a sale while the agreement was in effect even though plaintiffs were not the procuring cause. See Halbert v. Block-Meeks Realty Co., 227 Ark. 246, 297 S.W.2d 924 (1957); Pfarner v. Poston Realty & Insurance Agency, Inc., 109 Ga.App. 14, 134 S.E.2d 835 (1964); Byers Bros. Real Estate & ......
  • Charlotte Aircraft Corp. v. Purdue Airlines, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • June 7, 1974
    ...is sold, the broker is entitled to a commission even though the sale is made without his assistance. See Halbert v. Block-Meeks Realty Co., 227 Ark. 246, 297 S.W.2d 924 (1957). Dealing with a similar "net price contract," a California appeals court observed in Hall v. Douglas Aircraft Co., ......
  • Porter v. Deeter, 73--213
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • February 11, 1974
    ...Porter from selling the property without becoming liable for the broker's commission rely upon such cases as Halbert v. Block-Meeks Realty Co., 227 Ark. 246, 297 S.W.2d 924 (1957); Blumenthal v. Bridges, 91 Ark. 212, 120 S.W. 974 (1909); and Hardwick v. Marsh, 96 Ark. 23, 130 S.W. 524 (1910......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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