Murphy v. Knights of Columbus Bldg. Co.

• Decision Date: 04 March 1911
• Citation: 135 S.W. 446,155 Mo. App. 649
• Parties: MURPHY et al. v. KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS BLDG. CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

135 S.W. 446

155 Mo. A. 649

MURPHY et al. v. KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS BLDG. CO.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

March 4, 1911.

1. PRINCIPAL AND AGENT (§ 99)—POWER OF AGENT—IMPLIED AUTHORITY.

A delegation of power to an agent carries with it the power to do all things reasonably necessary and proper to carry into effect the power conferred and which are not forbidden.

2. PRINCIPAL AND AGENT (§ 99)—POWER OF AGENT—IMPLIED POWER.

An act done by an agent possessing specified power is necessary and therefore within his power when it is requisite for the accomplishment of the power conferred according to the intention of the principal.

3. PRINCIPAL AND AGENT (§ 124)—POWER OF AGENT—JURY QUESTION.

Whether an act done by an agent possessing specified power is necessary, and therefore within the power conferred, is for the jury under proper instructions, where the conclusion to be drawn from the facts is not obvious.

4. CORPORATIONS (§ 433)—POWER OF AGENT — JURY QUESTION.

Whether the chairman of the real estate committee of a corporation, desirous of procuring real estate in a large city, employed to find available property and report, had authority to employ a real estate agent to assist him, held, under the evidence, for the jury.

5. BROKERS (§ 39) — COMPENSATION — PURCHASE OF PROPERTY.

Real estate agents are not confined to the business of finding purchasers for owners, but they may be engaged as agents to find suitable property for those who wish to purchase, in which case, in the absence of a stipulation to the contrary, the presumption is that they are to be compensated by the purchaser.

6. BROKERS (§ 8)—EMPLOYMENT—EVIDENCE.

Evidence held to show that a real estate broker was employed by an agent of an intending purchaser to assist in purchasing suitable property.

7. BROKERS (§ 53) — COMMISSIONS — WHEN EARNED.

Where a real estate broker, employed to procure a building site for a corporation, directed the attention of the corporation to a site which the corporation subsequently purchased at a price less than that stated by the broker, and the negotiations resulting in the purchase were brought about by the broker's disclosure of the property, he had earned his commission; but if the property as disclosed by the broker was not satisfactory to the corporation, and the broker's disclosure did not result in negotiations leading to the purchase, or the negotiations begun as a result of the disclosure were abandoned, and the ultimate purchase was due to the acts of another, the broker could not recover commission.

8. BROKERS (§ 88) — COMMISSIONS — WHEN EARNED—JURY QUESTION.

Whether a broker, employed to find specific property for an intending purchaser, brought about a purchase of property disclosed by him, held, under the evidence, for the jury.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; J. Hugo Grimm, Judge.

Action by Thomas W. Murphy and another, copartners, against the Knights of Columbus Building Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed and remanded.

Plaintiffs, who are partners engaged in the real estate business in the city of St. Louis, sue defendant, a real estate holding corporation, for $950, the alleged reasonable value of their services, rendered at the special instance and request of defendant, in discovering, procuring, and submitting for defendant's approval a suitable real estate site, which the defendant approved and purchased for $38,000. The answer was a general denial. The trial being before a jury, the trial court directed a verdict for defendant at the close of plaintiffs' evidence, in consequence of which the plaintiffs took a non-suit with leave to move to set it aside, and afterwards, having so moved, and the court having overruled their motion, the plaintiffs have appealed to this court.

The evidence disclosed the following: Defendant being desirous of purchasing a building site, its board of directors appointed a "real estate committee" and made James M. Rohan chairman of it, with instructions, according to his testimony, "to go out and find an available site; * * * to go out and ascertain different locations and submit them to the board." Rohan testified that thereupon he saw a great many real estate men and solicited and received offerings from them, which he submitted to the board. Plaintiffs did not know of these promiscuous dealings. A few days prior to March 27, 1907, plaintiff Thomas W. Murphy received a telephone message from Ferdinand Meyer, one of defendant's directors, asking Murphy to give him a description and price on the northwest corner of Grand and Laclede avenues. About a year before this, the plaintiffs, without any employment thereto, had submitted some sites for the consideration of the defendant. Murphy got the description and price asked for by Meyer from the agent for the owner of the property and sent them to Meyer by letter. Meyer turned the letter over to Rohan, and on March 27, 1907, Rohan called with it at plaintiffs' business office. Rohan testified: "I went up to inform him that I was chairman of the real estate committee and that if he had any further communications to present them to me. And we talked about different sites, and I told him that we would want a site, and about the neighborhood," etc. Murphy testified: "When Mr. Rohan came to the office, he told me he was chairman of the committee on sites of the Knights of Columbus Building Company. He said that several sites were submitted on Grand avenue." He said, "See what you can get west of Grand avenue." Murphy then suggested, "Why don't you buy a building that you could use for temporary use at the time being?" And Rohan answered: "Why, see what you can get. I want to have something to submit at the next meeting." The plaintiffs' bookkeeper called Murphy's attention to the Mahler Hall property at 3545 Olive street, and he, being acquainted with the owner, made an appointment for Murphy to look through the building. Murphy went to the building, met the owner, and examined the building. He then wrote a letter, on plaintiffs' firm letter head, to Mr. Rohan, as follows: "St. Louis, Mo. March 29th, 1907. Mr. James M. Rohan — Dear Sir: Since our verbal conversation I have looked up some sites for the `Knights of Columbus' home; considering the financial condition, one of these propositions is very desirable for at least a temporary home. The property I am going to refer to will, in my judgment, greatly increase in value and could be used for meetings, without the expenditure of much money. The following is a description of the property: Mahler's Hall, 3545 Olive Street. Three-story brick building containing all conveniences for lodge purposes; 2 halls. First floor: Reception hall, smoking room, dining hall and kitchen. Second floor: Main hall 40×75 with balcony around 3 sides of hall; ladies cloakroom with toilet; gents' coatroom with toilet; office. Third floor: Six living rooms and bath. This may at a very small expense be changed into a small hall. The building is heated by `Home Comfort' hot air furnace; also is equipped with fire escapes. Lot 50×147. Price, excluding elec. fixtures, draperies and furnishings, $40,000.00. [The letter then describes three other locations.] If the board should desire to take up any of these propositions, we would be very glad to hear from them. I beg to remain. Yours very truly, [Signed] Thomas W. Murphy."

He delivered this letter to Mr. Rohan in person on the day of its date, giving him also a photograph of the Mahler's Hall building. This was the first time the Mahler's Hall property had been called to the attention of the defendant. When handed the letter and photograph, Rohan said: "This appeals to me. * * * I will submit this at the next meeting—bring it up at the board meeting." Rohan testified that he did submit and read Murphy's letter to the board of directors of the defendant at its next meeting, and that the board rejected the properties described therein. Murphy called again, and Rohan told him that the board did not think favorably of it, but that he would bring it up again. Rohan then discussed the matter with different members of the board, and upon Murphy calling again told him that he could not get them interested. Murphy then suggested the advisability of Rohan getting the board to go out and see the property, and Rohan said he would try to do so. Some time afterwards the board did go out in a body to see the property and authorized the purchase of it. Rohan brought one Levy, the agent of the owner, to the defendant's president, and they closed the deal, and the defendant acquired the property at $38,000. Mr. Rohan testified, however, that it was not on plaintiffs' invitation they had gone out; that they went out subsequent to that; that he and Murphy had "kind of dropped the matter for a while," and Murphy had submitted other sites; that a Mr. McDonald had again submitted the same property, and the board had then purchased it. After Murphy heard the building was sold, he called on Rohan and asked him if they had purchased...