Jaeger v. Glover

• Decision Date: 05 June 1903
• Docket Number: 13,537 - (109)
• Citation: 95 N.W. 311,89 Minn. 490
• Parties: LUTH JAEGER and Another v. SAMUEL GLOVER
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

95 N.W. 311

89 Minn. 490

LUTH JAEGER and Another v. SAMUEL GLOVER

Nos. 13,537 - (109)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

June 5, 1903

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Harrison, J., denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, after a trial and verdict in favor of plaintiffs for $337.50. Affirmed.

SYLLABUS

Real Estate Broker -- Commission.

Under a contract between a firm of real estate brokers and the owner of real property for its sale upon stipulated commissions the evidence reasonably tended to show that the brokers were the procuring cause of a transfer, not completed until after the expiration of the time named in the agency contract. Held, that the commissions were earned, and the verdict for the plaintiffs is sustained by the evidence.

C. C Joslyn, for appellant.

John Lind and A. Ueland, for respondents.

OPINION

LOVELY, J.

Plaintiffs, a firm of real-estate brokers in Minneapolis, seek to recover commissions from defendant for securing a purchaser of valuable property listed with them for sale. The action was tried to a jury. There was a verdict for plaintiffs for the amount claimed. This appeal is from an order denying a new trial.

Plaintiffs' services were rendered under a written contract, wherein it was agreed that they were to find a purchaser for the property, and were to have the exclusive agency until January 13, 1902 (six months from date), and were to sell the property for $8,000, one-half cash, with the balance in three annual payments, with interest at six per cent., or $7,200 if the sale were made for cash, at a commission of five per cent. of the purchase price.

The evidence tended to show that the real estate brokers immediately after the contract was made listed the property advertised it for sale, and, as result of these efforts, interested one Schomberg (a citizen of North Dakota) as a prospective purchaser. He wrote to plaintiffs' firm, offering $6,000, which was reported to defendant, who had desired to be informed of all offers made upon the property, without reference to the list price. Shortly afterwards Schomberg came to Minneapolis, and visited the brokers, who at once took him to defendant, and made arrangements for an examination of the property, which was located at Lake Minnetonka. The defendant and Schomberg visited the same, and, from this time on, negotiations were carried on between them; the plaintiffs taking no further part than to receive reports and participate in negotiations at their office. There was considerable dickering between the owner and prospective buyer. Demands were made by the latter for reductions of price, the owner meanwhile manifesting a disposition to come to terms. ...