Martinson v. Hensler
| Decision Date | 05 May 1916 |
| Docket Number | 19,578 - (36) |
| Citation | 157 N.W. 714,132 Minn. 437 |
| Parties | H. E. MARTINSON v. SOPHIA HENSLER |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
May 19, 1916, On Reargument
Action in the district court for Pipestone county to recover a balance of $836 for services in procuring a purchaser for 312 acres belonging to defendant. The case was tried before Olsen, J., who made findings and ordered judgment in favor of plaintiff for the amount demanded. Defendant's motion to amend the conclusions of law so as to direct judgment in his favor or for a new trial, was denied. From the order denying the motion and from the judgment entered pursuant to the order for judgment, defendant appealed. Reversed.
Broker's commission limited to excess over net price.
1. A contract by which the compensation of a real estate broker for effecting a sale of land is limited to the excess of the purchase price over and above a net price to the owner imposes no personal liability upon the owner, where the purchaser presented by the broker is unable to perform the contract of purchase.
Broker's commission limited to excess over net price -- owner may show purchaser was irresponsible.
2. Where the broker's commission is so limited, the fact that the owner upon presentation of a purchaser enters into a contract of sale with him, does not estop the owner from showing when sued for the commission that the purchaser was irresponsible, unable to perform, and for that reason that the contract of sale was canceled by mutual consent. Francis v. Baker, 45 Minn. 83, distinguished.
Finding of court construed -- admission in pleadings.
3. A finding by the trial court that all allegations of the pleadings not embraced within the findings expressly made are not true, held not to negative the truth of express admissions made by such pleadings.
Louis P. Johnson, for appellant.
Cady & Cady, for respondent.
Defendant's intestate, John Hensler, was the owner of an improved farm in Pipestone county, consisting of 312 acres. Plaintiff was a real estate broker residing at Parker, in the state of South Dakota. On October 30, 1910, plaintiff called at Hensler's home on the farm and made preliminary inquiry as to whether he desired to sell the place. The farm had not theretofore been listed for sale, but Hensler stated that he would be willing to sell if he could get his price, which he fixed at $60 per acre. Further negotiations and talk resulted in a reduction of the price to $59 per acre, with the understanding that plaintiff, if he effected a sale, was to receive as his commission all that he could sell the farm for over and above $59 per acre, the net price of the owner. At the time plaintiff came into Minnesota on this mission he brought with him a young woman, who resided near Parker South Dakota, as a prospective purchaser of the farm, and he so informed Hensler; and he further stated that he thought he could sell the place to this person. Later in the day he took this prospective purchaser out to the farm and she looked it over and then orally agreed to purchase the same at $62 per acre. An executory contract was subsequently made out by a banker at Ruthton, a village near by, and it was signed by both parties. The vendee paid the sum of $600 as the first instalment of the purchase price, of which amount $100 was paid over to plaintiff as a part of his commission, and the balance credited to Hensler's account at the bank. This all took place on October 30, 1910, but no further steps were ever taken, so far as the record discloses, looking to the performance of the contract by the vendee. In fact she was unable to perform, apparently abandoned the contract and, as testified to by Hensler, it was for that reason canceled by mutual consent in July, 1911. Nothing further transpired in the matter until some time during the year 1913, the precise date does not appear, when a real estate dealer residing at Pipestone, this state, presented himself to Hensler as the assignee of the contract, claiming the right thereunder to perform the same. After the abandonment of the contract, or cancelation thereof in July, 1911 Hensler made certain valuable improvements upon the farm, and he was unwilling when the assignee made his claim to perform the contract, unless these improvements were taken into account and the purchase price of the property increased accordingly. This the assignee declined to consider and threatened suit to enforce the contract. To avoid a lawsuit, Hensler testified, he settled the matter by paying to the assignee the sum of $1,600; of which $600 was to be returned to the vendee. Here again the matter rested until March, 1914, when plaintiff brought this action to recover his alleged commission for effecting a sale of the farm.
At the conclusion of the trial the parties consented to discharge the jury and to submit the cause to the court for decision. Findings of fact were thereafter made, and judgment was ordered for plaintiff for the full amount...
To continue reading
Request your trial