James v. Hiller, 6527
Decision Date | 22 October 1958 |
Docket Number | No. 6527,6527 |
Parties | S. Marvin JAMES and Audrey James, husband and wife, Appellants, v. Russell HILLER, Appellee. |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
James M. Howsare and Robert F. Miller, Tucson, for appellants.
Udall & Udall, Tucson, for appellee.
Russell Hiller, plaintiff below and appellee herein, sued S. Marvin James and wife to recover a real estate commission in the sum of $3,500 for causing the sale of defendants' property located in Tucson, Arizona. The trial court rendered judgment for the plaintiff in the amount claimed. Defendants appeal.
The controlling facts are that plaintiff is a real estate broker with offices in New Mexico and is licensed by that state to transact such business therein but is not licensed by the state of Arizona. In Tucson the parties apparently had orally understood that plaintiff was to attempt to sell defendants' Tucson property. Thereafter in New Mexico defendants executed a written listing authorizing plaintiff to sell the Tucson property for the price of $125,000. Plaintiff worked up a deal with one Ek, a resident of New Mexico who owned some properties therein, whereby Ek was to acquire the Tucson property, trade his New Mexico properties and pay defendants the balance. This deal resulted in a written contract entered into and executed in New Mexico between the plaintiff, defendants and Ek and his wife, whereby each of the owners agreed to convey their respective properties and Ek would pay defendants $87,000 in monthly instalments, the contract for transferring the Tucson properties to be escrowed in Tucson.
The contract executed by the parties in New Mexico contained the following provision:
Bearing the same date as the contract, May 24, 1954, the following letter signed by the defendant S. Marvin James was delivered to plaintiff:
'Dear Mr. Hiller:
'Pursuant to the agreement prepared by your company between the writer and Alvin B. and Pauline Ek covering the exchange of the Desert Sands Motel in Tucson Arizona for certain properties owned by Mr. and Mrs. Ek in Albuquerque, this will serve to confirm our understanding with regard to commissions due you as a result of this transaction.
'It is mutually agreed and understood that I am to receive a net amount of $30,000 for my equities in the properties in Albuquerque being obtained from Mr. & Mrs. Ek. and that this will constitute your option and exclusive right to sell these properties until Jan 1 1954 on a basis wherein you will receive the first $3500.00 in cash from the sale of these properties with the usual 5% commission to apply above this net figure on any sales, or, in the event that their sale is not consumated (sic) before Jan 1st. 1954, the following will apply;
The deal was consummated as agreed and the parties took possession of their respective properties and the plaintiff was paid, to apply on his commission, the sum of $1,500 as agreed in the letter. Thereafter Ek defaulted and defendants repossessed the Tucson property but refused to pay plaintiff the balance of the agreed commission which is the sum of $3,500.
Defendants suggest two reasons why plaintiff should not be allowed to recover. It is first urged that since plaintiff has no broker's license, as required by the provisions of section 32-2152,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Consul Ltd. v. Solide Enterprises, Inc.
...but has done little or no work. E.g., Coldwell Banker & Co. v. Karlock, 686 F.2d 596, 599-602 (7th Cir.1982); James v. Hiller, 85 Ariz. 40, 330 P.2d 999, 1002 (1958); Cochran v. Ellsworth, 126 Cal.App.2d 429, 272 P.2d 904, 907-08 (1954). Others rely on the substantive ground that the licens......
-
Richland Development Company v. Staples
...the law of the state where it is to be performed governs irrespective of the location of the property involved." James v. Hiller, 1958, 85 Ariz. 40, 330 P.2d 999, 1001. "The contention that the contract was void because of the fact that the plaintiff did not have an Idaho real estate broker......
-
Schoene v. Hickam, S-T
...a contract are determined by the law of the place where the contract is made. Nelson v. Browning, Mo.Sup., 391 S.W.2d 873; James v. Hiller, 85 Ariz. 40, 330 P.2d 999; Tanenbaum v. Sylvan Builders, Inc., 29 N.J. 63, 148 A.2d 176; 16 Am.Jur.2d Conflict of Laws Sec. 39; 11 Am.Jur. Conflict of ......
-
Tanenbaum v. Sylvan Builders, Inc.
...all performed in New York and that no material part or significant act thereof was engaged in in New Jersey. See James v. Hiller, 85 Ariz. 40, 330 P.2d 999 (Sup.Ct.1958); St. Angel v. Schmid, 4 Ill.App.2d 113, 123 N.E.2d 642 (App.Ct.1955); Cochran v. Ellsworth, 126 Cal.App.2d 429, 272 P.2d ......