Jones v. Hollander
Decision Date | 06 October 1925 |
Docket Number | No. 406.,406. |
Citation | 130 A. 451 |
Parties | JONES v. HOLLANDER. |
Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court of Jersey City.
Action by Edward H. Jones, trading as Jones, the Land Man, against Harry Hollander. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Argued May term, 1925, before PARKER, MINTURN, and BLACK, JJ.
Dembe & Dembe, of Bayonne, for appellant.
Benny & Cruden, of Bayonne, for respondent.
This was a suit by a real estate broker for commissions. The authority was in writing and signed by the defendant. The material part of it reads as follows:
Following this were the particulars respecting the property and other terms, etc. It appears that the plaintiff advertised the property, brought purchasers to look at it, and made the usual efforts of a broker to secure a purchaser, but had not succeeded in bringing owner and purchaser together up to the time when the owner made a trade, which included this property, with a party not produced by the plaintiff. This trade was made during the term of exclusive agency provided in the written authority as above. The state of the case as settled by the trial judge says that the defendant exchanged the property, and that two of the three houses, including No. 175, which are the premises in question, were conveyed under this contract at a price fixed upon of $31,500 for the two. The trial court held the plaintiff entitled to recover its commission and the defendant appeals.
The defendant moved to nonsuit, and for a judgment, on several grounds which will be now considered.
First, that, as the plaintiff did not make a sale, he is not entitled to recover any commission. But, as already pointed out, the agency was exclusive, and the rule, as we understand it, is that if, during the period of exclusive agency, the owner himself or any other agent makes a sale of the property, the exclusive broker is entitled to his commission, even although he had not made the sale. Dresser v. Gilbert, 81 N. J. Law,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brown v. Maris
...v. Byck, 1922, 28 Ga.App. 651, 113 S.E. 95; Crawford v. Cicotte, 1916, 186 Mich. 269, 152 N.W. 1065; Compare Jones v. Hollander, 1925, 3 N.J.Misc. 973, 130 A. 451; Beck v. Howard, 1920, 43 S.D. 179, 178 N.W. 579; Sunnyside Land & Investment Co. v. Bernier, 1922, 119 Wash. 386, 205 P. 1041, ......
-
Maine v. Garvin
...McFadden v. Pyne, supra. Moore v. Borgfeldt, 96 Cal.App. 306, 273 P. 1114; Blackburn v. Bozo, 82 Utah 556, 26 P.2d 542; Jones v. Hollander, 130 A. 451, 3 N.J.Misc. 973; McKinney v. City of Abilene (Tex.Civ.App.1952) 250 S.W.2d 924; Nichols v. Pendley (Mo.App.1960) 331 S.W.2d 673; Hammons v.......
-
Hutchinson v. Dobson-Bainbridge Realty Co.
...277, 200 P. 55; Ruess v. Baron, 1932, Cal.App. 10 P.2d 518; reversed on another ground, 217 Cal.App. 83, 17 P.2d 119; Jones v. Hollander, 1925, N, J.Sup., 130 A. 451; Annotations, 19 L. R.A., N.S., 599, L.R.A. 1917E, 1040, 64 A.L.R. 404, We think this is the better rule. The theoretical dif......
-
Chamberlain v. Grisham
... ... procure a purchaser constituted a sufficient consideration ... for the giving of an exclusive contract. Jones v ... Hollander, 130 A. 451, 3 N.J.Misc. 973; Gunning v ... Muller et ux., 118 Wash. 685, 204 P. 779; Greene v ... Minn. Billiard Co., 170 Wis ... ...