Livermore v. Crane
| Decision Date | 10 December 1901 |
| Citation | 67 P. 221,26 Wash. 529 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | LIVERMORE v. CRANE. |
Appeal from superior court, King county; Wm. Hickman Moore, Judge.
Action by C. B. Livermore against Charles E. Crane. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Stratton & Powell, for appellant.
H. B Huntley, for respondent.
The complaint, in substance, alleges that in May, 1898, defendant agreed in writing with plaintiff, who is a real estate broker: That defendant would purchase certain property in Seattle from Mrs. Brittain, and pay for it on the following terms, if plaintiff would procure such terms from the owner to wit: The full purchase price to be $11,000; $200 to be paid at the time of making the contract of purchase, $800 payable in 60 days, $1,000 payable in 90 days, $3,000 payable in 1 year, $3,000 payable in 2 years, and $3,000 payable in 3 years from the date of the contract, with interest on deferred payments at 8 per cent. per annum. At the time of making the agreement it was understood and agreed that plaintiff was to get his commission of $500 for making the sale from the owner, Mrs. Brittain. That plaintiff relying upon the agreement with defendant, performed services and induced the owner to sell the property for the price upon the terms proposed, and plaintiff by his efforts brought about a meeting of the defendant and the owner of the property, and procured a written contract satisfactory to both parties to be executed by them, by which, among other things, Mrs. Brittain agreed to sell, and the defendant to buy, the property upon the terms and for the price hereinbefore stated, and the sum of $200 was paid as the first payment at the execution of the contract. At the time plaintiff induced Mrs. Brittain to sell the property upon the terms and conditions mentioned, she agreed to pay the plaintiff $500 as his commission on the transaction: $50 of said amount to be paid at the time of the execution of the contract, $200 at the time provided for the second payment and the remainder, $200, after the third payment should be made by defendant as provided in the contract. That plaintiff has kept and performed all the terms and conditions of his contract with the defendant and the owner of the property, and Mrs. Brittain has kept and performed all of the conditions of the contract of sale by her to be performed, and has been ready at all times, and still is ready, to convey the property to the defendant, but the defendant has failed, refused, and neglected to purchase or pay for the property as he agreed to do. That the plaintiff has been damaged by defendant's failure and breach of the contract to purchase in the sum of $450, and that plaintiff has lost the remainder of the commission which he should have received from the owner of the property if the contract had been performed. A demand has been made upon defendant for the payment of said $450. Defendant filed a general demurrer to the complaint, which was overruled, and, a jury having been waived, the trial was before the court.
The evidence adduced is sufficient to support the findings of fact. The effect of the findings is to sustain the allegations of the complaint. With this view of the record the only question arising is upon the demurrer to the complaint,--did the complaint state a cause of action. It is urged by counsel for appellant that plaintiff has mistaken his remedy and sued the wrong person; that the only interest plaintiff had in the contract of sale was his commission, which was earned when the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ellsworth Dobbs, Inc. v. Johnson
...169 Okl. 534, 37 P.2d 976, 97 A.L.R. 854 (1934); Grossman v. Herman, 266 N.Y. 249, 194 N.E. 694, 695 (1935); Livermore v. Crane, 26 Wash. 529, 67 P. 221, 57 L.R.A. 401 (1901). In Blache v. Goodier, supra, the Court of Appeal of Louisiana said this on the 'It is settled that * * * the (broke......
-
Harris v. Van Vranken
...v. Pack, 114 N.C. 597, 19 S.E. 628. This last case is identical in facts with the one at bar. The following is from the opinion in Livermore v. Crane, viz.: second case mentioned is Atkinson v. Pack, supra, where it was in effect determined that a real estate broker negotiating a sale of la......
-
Hatten Realty Co. v. Baylies, 1618
...is evidently made on the theory that plaintiff might have sued Vanden Boom for its commission. They cite 2 R. C. L. 749; Livermore v. Crane, 26 Wash. 529, 67 P. 221, 57 R. A. 401; Littlefield v. Bowen, 90 Wash. 286, 155 P. 1053. The Washington cases seem to hold that a real estate broker wh......
-
Devoto v. Pacific Fidelity Life Ins. Co.
...323 (Sup.Ct. 1921) (Lehman, J.); James v. Home of the Sons and Daughters of Israel, 153 N.Y.S. 169 (Sup.Ct. 1915); Livermore v. Crane, 26 Wash. 529, 67 P. 221 (1901). In these instances, however, there has been a prior relation between the plaintiff and the defendant leading the former to r......