Hanna v. Haynes

• Decision Date: 15 March 1906
• Citation: 42 Wash. 284,84 P. 861
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: HANNA v. HAYNES et al.

84 P. 861

42 Wash. 284

HANNA v. HAYNES et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 15, 1906

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Mitchell Gilliam, Judge.

Action by S.E. Hanna against M. D. Haynes and others. From a conditional judgment for plaintiff, she and defendant the Haynes-Cowen Company appeal. Affirmed.

Fred H Peterson, R. A. Hulbert, and H. O. Force, for appellant hanna.

McClure & McClure, for appellant Haynes-Cowen Co.

HADLEY J.

This action involves a somewhat complicated controversy concerning the services of real estate brokers. The action was originally brought by the plaintiff S.E. Hanna, against the defendants M. D. Haynes and Charles Cowen, as copartners under the firm name of Haynes-Cowen Company. The complaint alleged that the plaintiff employed said Haynes as her broker and confidential agent, for the purpose of purchasing real estate for her, and that she reposed special confidence and trust in him; that in March, 1904, he represented to plaintiff that he could purchase for her the east half of the westerly half of lots 2 and 3 in block 26 of A. A Denny's addition to Seattle, for the sum of $10,000; that said sum was the net purchase price to the owner; that he, Haynes, represented to plaintiff that he would negotiate thepurchase of the property for plaintiff, and that inasmuch as the owner would pay no commission, he, Haynes, would accept in full for his services one-half of the net profits that should result from such purchase in the event of a resale of the property; that, relying upon such representations, the plaintiff so agreed with said Haynes, and thereupon a written memorandum to said effect was drawn and signed by the plaintiff and by Haynes-Cowen Company. This written memorandum also recites that Haynes-Cowen Company will endeavor to get options on the remaining portions of said lots, and that any profits arising from the sale of any portion of the lots shall be equally divided between the plaintiff and Haynes-Cowen Company. It is alleged that the plaintiff, through said defendants thereupon purchased the portion of said lots above particularly described, for the sum of $10,000; that in February, 1905, the plaintiff, for the first time, learned that the representations so made by said Haynes were untrue, and were made for the purpose of deceiving her, and to induce her to enter into said agreement; that in truth said defendants, at the time plaintiff purchased the property, were the agents and brokers of the vendor, and were paid by him the sum of $500 for effecting the sale to plaintiff; that upon learning such facts, plaintiff refused to ratify or abide by the agreement, and still refuses. She asks that the agreement be declared void, and that it shall be canceled.

Haynes-Cowen Company answered the complaint, and also interposed a cross-complaint, to the following effect: That out of the $10,000 purchase price for said property defendants paid a commission of $500; that they immediately took steps in accordance with their agreement with plaintiff to procure options upon the remaining portions of said lots, and did procure such option upon the west half of the westerly half thereof, and that the same was afterwards purchased, title thereto being taken by the plaintiff; that the purchase price therefor was $13,000, and that the same was obtained in the following manner, to wit: The south half of the west half of lot 3 was sold by plaintiff and defendants for $10,000, and the plaintiff furnished the additional $3,000; that defendants had full charge of all said negotiations; that plaintiff has invested the sum of $13,000, and that there remains unsold the north half of the west half of lot 3, and the west half of lot 2, the value of which is $40,000; that defendants' interest therein is of the value of $12,500. At the trial, to conform to certain testimony as to value, the cross-complaint was amended so as to state the full value as $56,000, and defendants' interest therein as $21,500. It is alleged that plaintiff is endeavoring to defraud the defendants of their interest in the property, and has refused to account to them. The cross-complaint asks for the appointment of a receiver to sell the property and divide the proceeds according to the terms of said agreement.

The copartnership of Foster-Knipe Company filed a complaint in intervention, also making one L. B. May a defendant thereto. The interveners allege that the owner of the first tract purchased by plaintiff had placed the property with them for sale at the price of $10,000, out of which they were to receive a commission of $500; that they authorized said May to procure a purchaser at said price, in which event he should have one-half of such commission; that May secretly placed the property in the hands of Haynes-Cowen Company, who effected the sale to plaintiff; that May has not accounted to interveners for their share of said commission; that May arranged with Haynes-Cowen Company to share equally with the latter in their interest arising from the re-sale of the property, and the interveners ask that they shall be declared to be the owners of an undivided half of that interest, and that said May and Haynes-Cowen Company shall be held to be the owners of the other half. May answered the complaint in intervention with denials, and also filed a cross-complaint against Haynes-Cowen Company, claiming a half interest with them in the profits accruing to them from the resale of the property.

The various conflicting claims as above shown were heard by the court at the trial, and a judgment rendered with respect thereto. The judgment provides that, if the plaintiff shall within thirty days pay into the registry of the court $1,575 then the agreement between her and Haynes-Cowen Company shall be canceled; that if she shall not so pay said sum, then an accounting shall be taken between the parties as to the profits arising from the purchase and sale of said property, and the same shall be divided as follows: The profits from the west half of the west half of said lots to be divided equally between the plaintiff and Haynes-Cowen Company, and those arising from the east half of the west half of the lots shall be divided as follows: One-half to plaintiff, one-fourth to Haynes-Cowen Company, one-eighth to Foster-Knipe Company, and one-eighth to L. B. May. It is further provided that in case $1,575 shall be paid into the registry of the court as aforesaid, then $1,450 thereof shall be paid to Haynes-Cowen Company and $125 to Foster-Knipe Company, and in such case it is also provided that Foster-Knipe Company shall have judgment against L. B. May for $125. No costs were awarded to any of the parties. The plaintiff Hanna and the defendants...