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

130 A. 451

JONES

v. HOLLANDER.

No. 406.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Oct. 6, 1925.

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.

PER CURIAM. 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:

"I hereby appoint Jones 'the Land Man' my agent to sell my property as below described, and I agree to pay him an amount equal to 3 Mi per cent. commission on the selling price I receive on the sale of said property. And I further agree to give him the exclusive right to sell said property for the term of 90 days; it being understood and agreed that the above-named agent shall be paid the full amount of said commission, if said property is sold during the term of this agreement."

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,...