Norris v. Byrne

• Decision Date: 01 May 1905
• Citation: 38 Wash. 592,80 P. 808
• Parties: NORRIS et al. v. BYRNE et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

80 P. 808

38 Wash. 592

NORRIS et al. v. BYRNE et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

May 1, 1905

Appeal from Superior Court, Thurston County; O. V. Linn, Judge.

Action by John H. Norris and another against John Byrne and others. From a judgment in favor of defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.

Vance & Mitchell, for appellants.

Troy &amp Falknor, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

On the 17th day of July, 1903, respondents were the owners of certain real estate situated in the city of Olympia, known as the 'Woodruff Block.' At said time, and for some time prior thereto, and ever since, these appellants were engaged in the real estate business in the city of Olympia. On or about said date one Schmidt had a conversation with appellants relative to his making an investment in Olympia real estate in a sum approximating $10,000, for and on behalf of his sister-in-law, one Henrietta Speckert. In this conversation appellants called his attention to the Woodruff property owned by these respondents. Subsequently thereto appellant Norris called upon respondent H. G. Richardson and asked him if said property was for sale, and, if so, at what price. Richardson answered that they would sell it for $9,000. Norris expressed the idea that this was a high price and retired. Again, on the same or the following day, Norris called on Richardson and resumed the conversation relative to said property, and asked Richardson if a commission would be allowed at that figure. Richardson said, 'No;' that it should be $9,000 net. Some other conversation followed and it was understood between them that appellants should have such an amount as they could obtain for the property over and above $9,000. Appellants again took up the matter with Schmidt, recommending the purchase of the property by him. They showed the property to him, and together they examined the same. As a result of this examination, and their efforts to induce him to purchase, he agreed to buy it for $9,500 for his said sister-in-law. He was able and ready to pay the money, but desired time to communicate with her, if possible. Norris told Richardson that they had a prospective purchaser, and that they would charge said buyer $9,500, and that he (Richardson) should see that the commission was paid them. To this Richardson said, 'All right.' Norris then asked as to how much time he could have to close the deal, as some correspondence would be necessary. Richardson said that he would see respondent John Byrne, his co-owner, about this. Richardson came to the office of the apellants, and had a conversation with them relative to the time to be given, and from their office telephoned to Mr. Byrne, telling the latter that they could sell the property for $9,000 net, and asking if 30 days could be allowed within which to close the deal. Byrne answered 'No;' that no time whatever would be allowed at that figure. Richardson then told appellant that he would go and see Mr. Byrne, and see what could be done as to the matter of allowing time. Appellants told Mr. Richardson that, in order to show their good faith, they would give him the name of the purchaser, and thereupon told him that said purchaser was Mr Schmidt, a prominent and well-known citizen, of ample financial means, and that he was purchasing said property for his sister-in-law in California, and that he desired some little time to correspond by letter, or at least to communicate by telegraph. Richardson then went to see Mr Byrne, and talked the matter over with the latter, and told him who the purchaser was, and all about the conversations which he had had with appellants. Thereafter Schmidt called at appellants' office, and, upon being told that Mr. Byrne declined to give 30 days' time, suggested that he go himself and see Mr. Byrne, as he knew him well, and thought that he could arrange for the necessary time. To this appellants assented, and Schmidt called Byrne up over the telephone. In this conversation between Byrne and Schmidt, Byrne offered to call upon Schmidt relative to the matter, and did so; and at this time, or in one of their conversations within the next few days, a bargain was concluded between Byrne and Schmidt, by hich Schmidt was given an option of buying the property within three days at $9,500. Within the three days, Schmidt notified Byrne that he would take the property at said price. The money was paid and the deeds were delivered several days after the expiration of the three days mentioned. Mr. Byrne testified that, before he consummated the deal with Schmidt, he told the latter that appellants were no longer in the matter, and there was to be no question about commissions involved. Richardson testifies that there was an understanding between him and Byrne that the property could be sold for $9,000 net. Byrne claims that this was true only with reference to certain Shelton parties with whom they had been negotiating for some time prior to the sale of the property, and claims that he never authorized Richardson to make any sale of the property, in so far as his portion thereof was concerned. Richardson claims that, when appellants asked for 30 days' time within which to correspond and consummate the deal, they were told by him that the same could not be granted, and that 'the transaction would have to be off.' It appears that there was, and had been theretofore, existing some ill feeling between one of appellants and one of respondents. The case was tried in the lower court before the judge without a...