Lamb v. Baxter

• Decision Date: 11 March 1902
• Citation: 40 S.E. 850,130 N.C. 67
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: LAMB v. BAXTER.

40 S.E. 850

130 N.C. 67

LAMB

v.BAXTER.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 11, 1902.

REAL ESTATE AGENTS—COMMISSIONS—NECESSITY OF WRITTEN CONTRACT—STATUTE OF FRAUDS—AGENCY FOR BOTH PARTIES—EVIDENCE—SUFFICIENCY.

1. A contract with real estate agents to negotiate a sale or exchange of land is not within the statute of frauds, so that no recovery of commissions can be had if not in writing.

2. In an action by a real estate agent for commissions, objected to on the ground that plaintiff represented both parties, plaintiff testified that defendant told him he would pay him a good commission if he succeeded in making a trade, and that he informed both parties that he would charge them commissions, to be paid equally by them, and that both agreed to pay them. Held sufficient, if believed, to justify a recovery.

Appeal from superior court Pasquotank county; Brown, Judge.

Action by E. F. Lamb against W. M. Baxter. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

G. W. Ward, for appellant

J. Heywood Sawyer, for appellee.

DOUGLAS, J. This Is an action to recover compensation as a real estate broker for services alleged to have been rendered by the plaintiff in effecting an exchange of property between the defendant and one Bartlett There is conflicting testimony as to what part the plaintiff took in the negotiations, but it is admitted that he brought the parties together, and, at least to that extent effected the exchange. The defendant refused to pay the plaintiff on three grounds: (1) That he did not employ him; (2) that such alleged contract was not in writing, and therefore void under the statute of frauds; and (3) that the plaintiff admittedly charged Bartlett for his services in the same transaction, and could not lawfully act as agent for both parties, where their interests were necessarily antagonistic.

This case seems to have resolved itself down to a mere question of fact, depending upon well-settled principles of law. Whether the defendant employed the plaintiff is certainly a simple question of fact. That such a contract need not be in writing was settled by this court in the recent case of Abbott v. Hunt 129 N. C. 403, 40 S. E. 119. It should be borne in mind that this action is not seeking to enforce the sale or exchange of land, nor does it affect any interest in land. It is brought simply to recover compensation for the personal services of the plaintiff, alleged to have been rendered under an agreement with the defendant, and at his request.

The third ground of exception cannot be sustained. It is well settled that an agent cannot in the same transaction represent both buyer and seller, without the full knowledge and consent, express or implied, of both parties. Mining Co. v. Fox, 39 N. C. 61, 70; Sumner v. Railroad Co., ...