Nash v. Goor
| Decision Date | 11 July 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 7010,7010 |
| Citation | 94 Ariz. 316,383 P.2d 871 |
| Parties | Rose NASH, dba Amherst-Nash Realty Company, Appellant, v. Benjamin GOOR and Anne Goor, his wife, Appellees. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Frederick E. Kallof, Phoenix, for appellant.
Ryley, Carlock & Ralston, by Joseph P. Ralston, Phoenix, for appellees.
Action was brought to recover a real estate broker's commission allegedly owing for a sale of real property located within the City of Phoenix. The matter was tried before the court without a jury, and judgment was rendered for defendant. From this the plaintiff appeals principally on the grounds that the evidence does not support the judgment.
It is elementary to say that this Court is bound by the facts found in the trial court where there is any evidence to support them. Clark v. Ellsworth, 66 Ariz. 119, 184 P.2d 821 (1947). In the case before us, not just a part of the evidence, but all of it, taken together, substantiates the findings of the trial court; and the trial court was justified in finding as a matter of law that plaintiff was not entitled to a real estate commission. 1
The facts are that on March 7, 1957, plaintiff entered into an 'open non-exclusive listing' agreement with defendant to sell a piece of defendant's property. The agreement was given on the supposition that plaintiff had a 'hot prospect'. Plaintiff then offered the property to the City of Phoenix whose agents refused to deal with plaintiff and would deal only with the owner. Plaintiff, having refused earlier to inform defendant as to the identity of her 'prospect', then sent a registered letter to defendant telling him the City was considering the purchase. Defendant, by return letter, told plaintiff that the City was not plaintiff's prospect and the deal was off. Plaintiff did nothing more after that time. Eventually the City did buy the property. It was then plaintiff came in to sue for her alleged commission.
Other facts complete the story. First, the evidence is uncontradicted that defendant had been negotiating on the property with agents of the City the year before his agreement with plaintiff was made. The plaintiff herself, upon direct examination, testified she had been advised even before defendant's letter to her that defendant had, as much as a year before her agreement, dealt with the City on the property. There was also testimony by others which went uncontradicted that defendant had been dealing with the City and its agents for some time before he gave plaintiff an 'open non-exclusive listing.' 2
The evidence supports the Court's finding that the plaintiff did not procure the City of Phoenix as a purchaser. Only if she had procured the City as a purchaser would she be entitled to a commission. See Fink v. Williamson, 62 Ariz. 379, 158 P.2d 159 (1945).
A second element of the facts is also significant. Plaintiff's listing expired by the terms of the agreement on June 7, 1957. There was a ninety-day period, or until September 7, 1957, during which the broker could receive...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Hair v. O'Hair
...court will not weigh conflicting evidence on appeal. Hollis v. Industrial Commission, 94 Ariz. 113, 382 P.2d 226 (1963); Nash v. Goor, 94 Ariz. 316, 383 P.2d 871 (1963); Jackson v. Clintsman, 91 Ariz. 314, 372 P.2d 204 (1962); Fernandez v. Garza, 88 Ariz. 214, 354 P.2d 260 (1960); Hurst v. ......
-
Tri-State Ins. Co. v. Maxwell
...at all times knew that the trailer to be delivered by Advance Mobile Homes to the plaintiffs was to be manufactured.' In Nash v. Goor, 94 Ariz. 316, 383 P.2d 871, we 'It is elementary to say that this Court is bound by the facts found in the trial court where there is any evidence to suppor......
-
State Land Dept. v. Painted Desert Park, Inc.
...the province of this court to disturb the findings of the trial court where there is substantial evidence to support them. Nash v. Goor, 94 Ariz. 316, 383 P.2d 871. In the instant case, two appraisers for the corporation testified that the improvements were worth approximately the value fou......
-
Williams v. Long
...there was no special agreement on this subject. On appeal, this court must accept this version as being correct. Nash v. Goor, 94 Ariz. 316, 383, P.2d 871 [1963]. One of the assignments of error is that when attempt was made by defendants to prove that the goods were agreed to be 'factory-f......