Heaton v. Edwards

• Decision Date: 04 March 1892
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: HEATON et al. v. EDWARDS.

51 N.W. 544

90 Mich. 500

HEATON et al. v. EDWARDS.

Supreme Court of Michigan

March 4, 1892

Error to circuit court, Wayne county; HENRY N. BREVOORT, Judge.

Action by Frank D. Heaton and Henry Richardson against Annie L Edwards to recover commissions on the sale of real estate. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.

William Stacey, for appellants.

Alex. D. Fowler, for appellee.

GRANT J.

Plaintiffs sued to recover commissions on sale of real estate. Defendant was the owner of the real estate, and authorized them to negotiate a sale. Their evidence is to the effect that she offered to take $5,500 for the property; that she afterwards offered to take $5,300; that they opened negotiations November 10, 1889, with one Munro for the purchase; that they obtained a cash offer from him of $5,000, which they submitted to her, but she declined it; that during the latter part of November Mr. Munro called on them, and said that he had seen Mrs. Edwards, and she would take $5,150 if they would take $50 for their commission; this they declined; that defendant sent for Munro to go to her house; that she then proposed to deal directly with him, so as to avoid the commission; that at her request he consulted a lawyer to ascertain if she could thus avoid it, and advised her that she could not, and that afterwards he purchased the land from her for $5,125, and agreed to pay $25 more towards the commission; that about December 10th she ordered the property removed from their books, saying that she would not then sell it. The evidence on the part of the defendant was to the effect that they made her a cash offer of $5,000; that she refused to accept it; that they made her no further offers; that on the 2d day of November she went to plaintiffs' office, told them that she would not sell her property till spring, and ordered them to take it off their books, which they said they would do; that the latter part of November she learned through some neighbors that Mr. Munro would like to buy the property; that she then sent for him that she did not know that he had seen plaintiffs; that Munro said nothing about them, and that his statements of what occurred between them were not true. The contract of sale was dated December 7, 1889. The court instructed the jury as follows, at the request of plaintiffs: "(1) If you believe from the evidence that the plaintiffs procured a customer for the defendant's property, who was ready and willing to purchase on terms statisfactory to her, then they are entitled to their pay, and your verdict will be for the plaintiffs. (2) If you believe from the evidence that the defendant placed her property in the hands of the plaintiffs for sale, and that they commenced negotiations with Mr. Munro for the purchase of the property, and while these negotiations were pending she took it out of their hands, and completed the sale herself, then plaintiffs are entitled to recover their commission, the same as if they had actually completed the sale. So that you will not misunderstand the second request of the plaintiffs, I charge you, gentlemen that if, according to the plaintiffs' theory, she went there about the 10th day of December, and told them she would withdraw the property from their hands, and they at that time, or two or three days before, had entered into this agreement, then plaintiffs are entitled to their commission. If you believe such was not the fact; that before they had said anything to Munro about the purchase of this property that she went to them, and withdrew her property from their hands,-then,...