Martin Realty Co. v. Fletcher
| Decision Date | 15 March 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 446.,446. |
| Citation | 136 A. 498 |
| Parties | MARTIN REALTY CO. v. FLETCHER. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Essex County, First District.
Action by the Martin Realty Company against Joshua C. Fletcher. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.
Argued October Term, 1926, before KALISCH, KATZENBACH, and LLOYD, JJ.
James P. Mylod, of Newark, for appellant.
Peck & Davis, of Bloomfield, for respondent.
This is a defendant's appeal from a judgment of the district court of the First judicial district of the county of Essex. The suit was instituted to recover commissions upon an alleged sale of property belonging to the defendant. The defendant, on April 8, 1924, signed and delivered to the plaintiff the following contract:
"I hereby authorize exclusively the Martin Realty Company to sell or exchange the property described on the reverse side of this card, and, in the event of said property being sold or exchanged, agree to pay them a commission of 3 1/2 per cent. for improved property, and 5 per cent. for unimproved property."
At the time of signing, the defendant borrowed of the plaintiff $400 to finish the house mentioned in the agreement. The defendant repaid to the plaintiff the full amount of this loan with interest. During September, 1924, the defendant conveyed the property to his partner in part settlement of a partnership debt. The house was taken at an agreed value of $8,500. Suit was then instituted for commissions based on the above writing. Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $297.50 was given. Motions to nonsuit and direct a verdict for the defendant were denied by the trial court. Exceptions were taken to these rulings. These exceptions are the grounds of appeal.
The plaintiff procured no purchaser. It advertised the property for sale. It procured no customer. No sale was made by reason of any advertising which the plaintiff did. If the writing set forth gave the plaintiff an exclusive right to sell the property, the judgment was properly rendered. Where an exclusive right to sell property is given to a real estate broker, the broker is entitled to a commission of any sale thereof made by the principal within the time specified in the contract. 9 C. J. 622. Where, however, the broker is given merely an exclusive agency, as distinguished from an exclusive right to sell, it merely precludes the principal from employing another broker, and does not preclude the principal from making a sale himself without the broker's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Erickson Hardwood Co. v. North Pacific Lumber Co.
...See Harris v. McPherson, 97 Conn. 164, 115 A. 723 (1922); Firszt v. Wdoviak, 104 Conn. 744, 133 A. 586 (1926); Martin Realty Co. v. Fletcher, 103 N.J.L. 294, 136 A. 498 (1927). We do not comment on the enforceability of such a provision where no exclusive sales agency exists.5 In an interna......
-
Shea v. Second Nat. Bank, 8234.
...Reiner Co., 46 R. I. 302, 127 A. 359; Dole v. Sherwood, 41 Minn. 535, 43 N.W. 569, 5 L.R.A. 720, 16 Am.St.Rep. 731; Martin Realty Co. v. Fletcher, 103 N.J.L. 294, 136 A. 498; Blank v. Longenberger, 133 Misc. 32, 231 N.Y.S. 79; Metcalf v. Kent, 104 Iowa 487, 73 N.W. 18 Greene v. Minn. Billia......
-
Smyth Sales v. Petroleum Heat & Power Co.
...Wdowiak, 1926, 104 Conn. 744, 133 A. 586; Harris v. McPherson, 1922, 97 Conn. 164, 115 A. 723, 24 A.L.R. 1530; Martin Realty Co. v. Fletcher, Sup.1927, 103 N.J.L. 294, 136 A. 498. These indicate that the courts of New Jersey and Connecticut would reach a similar conclusion in interpreting t......
-
Bell v. Dimmerling
... ... McPherson, ... 97 Conn. 164, 115 A. 723, 24 A.L.R. 1530; Boggess Realty ... Co. v. Miller, 227 Ky. 813, 14 S.W.2d 140; Smith v ... Preiss, 117 Minn. 392, 136 N.W. 7, n.Cas.1913D, 820; ... Martin Realty Co. v. Fletcher, 103 N.J.L. 294, 136 ... A. 498; Lewis v. Smith, Tex.Civ.App., 198 S.W.2d ... ...