Hale v. Brown
Decision Date | 07 February 1924 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 17. |
Citation | 211 Ala. 106,99 So. 645 |
Parties | HALE v. BROWN. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied April 17, 1924.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Dan A. Greene, Judge.
Action on the common counts by C. H. Brown against J. Winston Hale to recover real estate broker's commissions. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Stokely Scrivner, Dominick & Smith, of Birmingham, for appellant.
D. G Ewing and Cabaniss, Johnston, Cocke & Cabaniss, all of Birmingham, for appellee.
The plaintiff was C. H. Brown, and the defendant was J. Winston Hale.
The issues submitted to the jury were (a) whether the relation of subbroker and broker existed between Brown and Hale, so that the former stood in the same relation to the latter as did Hale to the Fulenwiders, and (b) whether Hale, Pitts, and Brown were joint adventurers, and in that event plaintiff (Brown) could not recover of defendant (Hale), unless the latter had actually recovered the commissions from the Fulenwiders. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff.
The plaintiff, as a witness, testified that he "was in the real estate business with the defendant," had handled such "transactions in conjunction with the defendant" "prior to the time that this matter is suit came up"; that their agreement was "When I went in the office with the defendant my agreement with him was that I was to work under his license and he was to pay the expenses of the office, and I was to get half of the commissions on all sales I made; that is, on the ones handled by me, or the ones that I brought in, that is, if I produced a purchaser or a seller, and the trade went through, through the influence of the defendant in connection with those trades, I was to get half of the commissions,"
The witness further stated of the matter in hand:
As to the amount of the commissions the witness stated:
The witness also testified that the sale did not "go through," and there "has been no consummation of the sale yet."
The defendant Hale, as a witness, testified:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Little v. Laurendine
...there was a joint contract as to selling prices and thus reserving to each party the matter that affected the profits. In Hale v. Brown, 211 Ala. 106, 99 So. 645, it declared that the mere agreement between the real estate brokers engaged in promoting an exchange of properties for division ......
-
City of Birmingham v. Latham
... ... 103, 148 So. 822; Alabama Power Co. v. Lewis, 224 ... Ala. 594, 141 So. 229; American Surety Co. v. Pryor, ... 211 Ala. 114, 99 So. 636; Hale v. Brown, 211 Ala ... 106, 99 So. 645 ... But ... plaintiff insists the exception was too broad, and that as ... portions of the part ... ...
-
Ellison v. Sudduth Realty Co.
... ... property with one broker or agent, Handley et al. v ... Shaffer, 177 Ala. 636, 59 So. 286; Hale v ... Brown, 211 Ala. 106, 99 So. 645; Culver v. Gambill ... Realty Co., 214 Ala. 84, 107 So. 914; Ferrell v ... Montgomery, 212 Ala. 44, 101 ... ...
-
Finney v. Long
...100 So. 111; Meeks v. Miller, 214 Ala. 684, 108 So. 864. And the rights of subbrokers were given extended consideration in Hale v. Brown, 211 Ala. 106, 99 So. 645; (Ala.Sup.) 110 So. 376. The relation of the parties to the sale must be determined. Distinguished counsel thus state their resp......