Mercantile Trust Co. v. Lamar

Decision Date03 May 1910
Citation148 Mo. App. 353,128 S.W. 20
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Moses N. Sale, Judge.

Action by the Mercantile Trust Company against William R. Lamar. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Jos. A. Wright, for appellant. Karl M. Vetsburg, for respondent.


By an instrument signed by defendant and dated February 1, 1907, he appointed plaintiff exclusive agent to sell a house and lot, to wit, part of lot 2, block 4,847, in the city of St. Louis, stating the lowest price he would accept was $6,750. The instrument contained this clause: "In consideration of the Mercantile Trust Company advertising the property, and their efforts to sell the same, if a sale or exchange of said property is made while in charge of said company, I agree to pay for their services a commission of 2½ per cent. on above price. My title is perfect, and, in event of sale, general warranty deed will be given. I reserve the right to terminate this agency at any time on thirty days' notice in writing. It is further agreed that, if no sale be made, I am to be at no expense whatever."

At the date of the contract plaintiff had in its service an employé by the name of Max Weinburg, who testified at the trial that during the summer of 1907, and therefore subsequent to the date of plaintiff's agency, he mentioned to Ben F. Reinberger defendant's property, proposing to sell it to Reinberger for a home, as he said he wanted to buy a home, or rather his wife did. The same witness said, further: Defendant told him about the middle of May, 1908, defendant had sold his house. That the next day Weinburg met Reinberger, and the latter said he had bought a house, but could not tell the witness what house he had bought until the last of the month. Thereupon witness told Reinberger that he (Reinberger) had bought defendant's house, and Reinberger laughed. The witness communicated these facts to the plaintiff company, and the latter, May 15, 1908, wrote a letter to defendant, stating plaintiff had been given an exclusive contract for the sale of the property, subject to the termination of the agency by defendant at any time on 30 days' written notice; saying, further, plaintiff had received notice from defendant April 30th of the withdrawal of the agency, which would make the agency terminate May 29, 1908; that plaintiff had been informed defendant had contracted to sell the property to Ben F. Reinberger for $6,500, and if this was the case, though a deed had not yet passed, plaintiff would be entitled to a commission on the sale, and it should be closed through plaintiff; that Weinburg had submitted the house to Reinberger six months before and had worked with him and others trying to make a sale. This letter was not answered by defendant. A contract in writing signed by Lamar and by Reinberger and his wife, and dated June 1, 1908, is in evidence and shows a sale of the property by defendant to Reinberger. The contract recited the receipt of $100 from Reinberger as earnest money and part of the purchase price, and stated the terms of the sale, to wit, $2,600 cash, and that the sale was subject to a first deed of trust for $4,000, etc.; and said further if the title was found to be imperfect on examination, and could not be perfected within a reasonable time, Reinberger was to be paid the reasonable cost of examining the title, and the earnest money was to be refunded; that the sale was to be closed June 1, 1908, at the Savings Trust Company, and, if not closed by said date owing to the failure and neglect of the purchaser to comply with the terms, the earnest money was to be forfeited. Reinberger testified his wife bought the property and paid $6,600 for it; that on June 1st the abstract of title had already been run down, but there was no sale until said date; that he knew of no earlier contract than the one mentioned, but he and his wife saw the property in May; did not see it the latter part of April; saw it early in May. He was asked if he bought the property or had an agreement to purchase prior to the date of the written contract,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Loud v. St. Louis Union Trust Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • April 12, 1926
    ... ... of mining companies, and reinvest in sound securities ... Plaintiff admits it. The authorities are a unit. Lamar v ... Micou, 112 U.S. 476; Loring's Trustee's Handbook ... (3 Ed.) 106; Cornet v. Cornet, 269 Mo. 298; ... Underhill on Trusts & Trustees, p ... upon that contract, the contract became bilateral and binding ... on the trustee. Typewriter Co. v. Realty Co., 220 ... Mo. 522; Mercantile Trust Co. v. Lamar, 148 Mo.App ... 353; Strode v. Transit Co., 197 Mo. 616; ... Typewriter Co. v. Realty Co., 118 Mo.App. 197; ... Martin ... ...
  • Podolsky and Associates L.P. v. Discipio
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • June 30, 1998
    ...Corporation v. Klindworth, 77 N.D. 597, 44 N.W.2d 417 (1950); Lewis v. Dahl, 108 Utah 486, 161 P.2d 362 (1945); Mercantile Trust Co. v. Lamar, 148 Mo.App. 353, 128 S.W. 20 (1910); 12 Am.Jur.2d Brokers § 274 (1997). The rationale for this type of case being treated differently from those in ......
  • Loud v. St. Louis Union Trust Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 22, 1925
    ...the holdings of this court and our Courts of Appeals, made the contract bilateral and binding upon both parties. Mercantile Trust Co. v. Lamar, 128 S. W. 20, 148 Mo. App. 353; Underwood Typewriter Co. v. Realty Co., 94 S. W. 787, 118 Mo. App. 197; Id., 119 S. W. 400, 220 Mo. 523, 25 L. R. A......
  • Mercantile Trust Company v. Lamar
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • May 3, 1910
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT